"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225a434784ed6441aa96797cf364ffc680\u0022\u003ETuesday, 14 December 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022469e52b3f39444b7ab1b7e3e5c4dcdbe\u0022\u003ETuesday, 14 December 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fd557da93b6046bf9e39ec070b8bae6b\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba28930446b74255946e8b790be89e1c\u0022\u003ESocialist Republic of Viet Nam\u2014Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u00220aff34e493c94bb396a3a613265300d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220aff34e493c94bb396a3a613265300d8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b87de29a954e41ccac14d21c3a13dff4\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b912d98a6a9d4cacb03921c4abded3ed\u0022\u003EAgent Orange\u2014Health Committee Report\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002289283bf9ce114569815299daa4dac0c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289283bf9ce114569815299daa4dac0c6\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the papers presented included the Government\u2019s response to the Health Committee\u2019s report on its inquiry into Agent Orange. We understand that today is the last opportunity for question time. It would be helpful if, through you, the Prime Minister could perhaps provide to the House her response to this report, particularly for those veterans who have been damaged by Agent Orange, because we will not have an opportunity to put any questions on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac1586d7894c485787de388c08960186\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac1586d7894c485787de388c08960186\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022433d3c7355f54a2297e86c1817d9574b\u0022\u003EDoha Declaration\u2014Motion\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00221bbba5dbd9b9445ba7d94861db9f714f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bbba5dbd9b9445ba7d94861db9f714f\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move members\u2019 notice of motion No 2, in my name, on the Doha declaration, as a non-debatable, non-controversial motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c5e790e7aeb41128422665dc29f32f6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022561816d66a2b49fab3ac4a7cf867952e\u0022\u003ETabling of Documents\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f3979531ff6f4c84be077fe37eba6445\u0022\u003EDoha Declaration on the Family\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022892a450148804f9fbaec9f3da13d23c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022892a450148804f9fbaec9f3da13d23c3\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table the Doha Declaration on the Family, which was presented to the United Nations last Monday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022785f5d08133749b9827c44f9978eaa07\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: I also seek leave of the House to table the text of the New Zealand delegate\u2019s speech on the Doha declaration presented on December 6 at the 12United Nations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022184bda2811ed4cc28f4e55e28e13cc69\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002224fed2fae28b4223af037bb2403bfeac\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002251c3030f27db4a5089c9d8f02d33fcf1\u0022\u003EPolice, Minister\u2014Confidence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6508283f8fe4bb793f74b61986029c3\u0022\u003E1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Police; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u00222187193ea2984e4689f44aeed52cf3f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222187193ea2984e4689f44aeed52cf3f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bc5383ebdd04cdcab448a0e17849e3c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There was one interjection that was out of order, and the member knows it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223767236988a249a5bc6f3d1dc96ce08b\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: How can she have confidence in the Minister of Police when the December edition of the Police Association magazine reveals that police communication centres have been experiencing serious staffing and technology problems resulting in 20 percent of calls from the public being lost in some centres?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e54ae56b1c8749ce8656155cc232b56b\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: As the member knows, those centres are being reviewed. A report is due in March. Submissions were called for by the external panel, which is reviewing the call centres, and I note that when submissions closed on 10 December the Police Association had not made a submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e312967df2f7472eac93fbc00e251ab3\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Does she accept that it is important not just for her to have confidence in the Minister of Police but for the police themselves to have confidence in that Minister, and how can they have confidence in that Minister when five police officers are being pursued relentlessly through the courts simply because they assumed that the Prime Minister did want to get to the rugby on time, and could confidence not be restored all around by the Prime Minister just accepting responsibility for the fact that she was in charge?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221435f770286a4cf99bbafc6aa08d672e\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows that it is not appropriate for me to comment on matters that are before the courts. The member also knows that the Police Minister has no jurisdiction over such matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224631d6e8e14a48a4a735873325dfc52e\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9862edf0d7048bfae416b0cce71ddad\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It had better be a point of order. That question was certainly addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256d222834f294335ae94db5a0023e44a\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: My point of order is this: this case certainly does not apply to the sub judice rules like the Prime Minister explained before. That is incorrect. It is certainly OK for her to comment on this case\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221afafc82a2574b4baa0edbd3fad18959\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Please be seated. The member does not even know the Standing Orders, and he should take occasion over the adjournment to read them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e1481a4805d4a70933ef3eff2e360bb\u0022\u003EJudy Turner\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister have any confidence that the Minister of Police is fulfilling his obligations under her Government\u2019s Health and Safety in Employment Act when police communications centres are so understaffed that some employees have developed urinary tract infections because they are unable to take comfort breaks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f427aa5b9e9149b1ae49905371fc031a\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: For all I know that may have been asserted in the material the Police Association is putting into the public arena. The external panel is quite happy to reopen the submission deadline if the Police Association would like to make a submission to that effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c85544bcbb54387a717f5736f36a2f7\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is her intention to sack the Minister of Police in the upcoming reshuffle, given recent revelations of failure of the 111 call system, strong suggestions that the police have been directed not to go looking for methamphetamine laboratories because they make the crime statistics look bad, and generally low morale in the police force; if not, just what further revelations are required for her to dismiss the Minister of Police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d2dd885d0ca40338ae00d5b6fabd7ac\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I can advise the House that the Minister of Police is substantially more likely to have his job next week than the Leader of the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022586f13a7be9a4af6a545921b2a7fd1db\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who cannot answer a simple written question asking him to tell New Zealand First the registration plate numbers of the police cars involved in the high-speed movement from Waimate to Christchurch, or is he simply taking a lead from her, the Prime Minister, who has also refused to tell New Zealand First the registration plate number of the car she was travelling in?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022521d55b2783045f6a3d1c30fbc1c0e69\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am not commenting on matters before the court, and I imagine that the Minister is taking the same view.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022633b8f62829348b5a1e0ab16436708b4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to know just how the sub judice rule now extends to car registration numbers. This is an extraordinary confinement of the rule to knowledge in this House. All we have asked for is the car registration number. That could be obtained in other ways as well, but we have sought it the proper way by merely asking for that information, and we have received the reply that that information is sub judice. With respect, if the car was being sold at this point in time, then the marketplace would be entitled to know what the registration number was, and it is not sub judice. So could the Prime Minister please answer the question properly?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022209f6316c93d461ea19dbec56a1bcedd\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Let me tell the member that I am not here to judge whether the question was answered on the actual answer given. The Prime Minister is entitled to reply like that, and she did, but that does not mean to say that I am saying the reply was good, bad, or otherwise. She certainly addressed the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226decce328b044d3cac1d5cdaaf68b12e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, unfortunately \u201Crhubarb\u201D becomes a satisfactory answer in this Parliament. All we are asking the Prime Minister is the registration number of the car that she was travelling in, because certain matters relate to that that the public would be interested in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E To say that is sub judice, and that that is an answer, just tells me that we have a contempt here for Parliament and a contempt for parliamentary questions. I know it is an answer, but it is an answer on the same basis as \u201Crhubarb\u201D would be. If that is the sub judice rule, how did it go from being what it once was\u2014that is, if it did not relate directly to the case, then it could be mentioned\u2014to being narrow and restrictive when it comes to parliamentary democracy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb706fb5321443f6b834a009d0db4a8c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister did not say the matter is sub judice\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229287d01fca4d4b3294a0147cd1134837\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: She did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd93078b7bbc4b0d931bc5263518659e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: No, she did not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a0c9c9b39c34c3584bff430bd848f7e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! That is the last time today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220eca3b38d47e43e6a921a4727382c3d0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: What the Prime Minister said was that she was not commenting on matters before the court. That brings the answer into the category where a Minister declines to answer a question on the grounds of public interest, or other matters, which the Minister herself has to be the sole judge of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230af480873064fc6b79fe7af4b1a1978\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member is right; the Prime Minister did not invoke the Standing Order by asking the Speaker to rule the question out. She gave an answer and she addressed the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227536009edfa24db1929aeecb9578aa28\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I point out that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right. In a written answer to my colleague Ron Mark, that is precisely what she said and she knows it. I am putting it on the record that she is pleading the sub judice rule\u2014first, in a written answer, and, secondly, by inference in her answer in this House today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6ea116bc0f54edcbab95d4d82cba330\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am talking about an oral question that has been asked in this House, and it was addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257f4e94b40734257af787882eca05c27\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6a8830492e0486e93cc7a7abb014029\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am not entering into this argument any further, but if it is a point of order, I will be interested.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b37993375b74198ad0422e8f32caec8\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: It is. Is this not the point\u2014that the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer, and she can do that, but she is just invoking the rule that she does not have to answer any particular question. It is not bringing in the sub judice rule; she is just not prepared to answer the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287250265356c48cb9d0413c7d3416ca3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member does not raise a point of order. He is just wasting the time of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241ba84cd5eaa4b56847dbccd293662f7\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that new charges have today been laid against the officers who accompanied her on her high-speed dash across Canterbury in July; if so, is she prepared to demonstrate her confidence in the Minister and her police by offering to give evidence at the trials of those officers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209698adb3bc244fda494a5551074d2f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am only aware of what I read on the NZPA news screen, and I repeat that I will not be commenting on matters before the court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222382d07e7453444f8f31f756bef18ff7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is it not a fact that the reason why she will not give us, via her Minister of Police in whom she has enormous confidence, or herself, the answer to the question of the car registration is that the speeds involved created significant damage to the vehicle she was in, and even to the windscreen, but in all that time she did not notice the speed she was going, at all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275360e25d069473395d40ab0fe6f73f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I have had no advice to the effect of the member\u2019s question, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab9eccc682fe461d80fa3025d0bda6ec\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Could the Prime Minister advise us what standards she is following when she is indicating confidence in the Minister of Police? Is it the same standard that she followed when she savagely criticised a National Minister of Police and said he should be sacked over the failure of the police\u2019s centralised computer system\u2014INCIS\u2014or is it a different standard when under her watch her Minister has been in charge of the police\u2019s latest centralised computer system\u2014the Comm Centre\u2014for handling 111 and other calls, where 20 percent of calls at many centres are regularly unanswered; and to give her a local example, when a call was made from Molesworth Street, which Parliament is in, the communications centre did not even know where it was and sent the vehicle to the wrong address. Now, if she following the same standard, why is that Minister still a Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d79394991bed481b9fd67ef2fea3fc39\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That question is too long. There are three questions, the Prime Minister may address two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a02b2036dfcf4de79ae5009092a26a96\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: My recollection of the INCIS affair is that under a previous Government a rather large amount of public money went up in smoke. That is the first point. The second point is that the accusation in this case appears to be that not enough money is being spent. The third point I would make is the police do not always get everything right, but generally they do. With the 111 system there have clearly been problems. That is why there is a review, and I invite the Police Association to front up to the review and make a submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224774b07cd0ba4b91b3c739d6f171857b\u0022\u003EPrimary Health Organisations\u2014Progress\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7cc63155d4149f8922748450ca3e20d\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: Has she received any reports regarding the progress of primary health organisations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5fe6f139de14f37af3a1d393c5f4eb5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5fe6f139de14f37af3a1d393c5f4eb5\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. There are now 3.7 million New Zealanders enrolled in primary health organisations\u201491 percent of the population. We knew primary health organisations were delivering cheaper health-care to many New Zealanders, but after reading South Link Health\u2019s survey of South Island primary health organisations released yesterday, it seems that even greater reductions have occurred. Well over half the actual charges are less than the advertised fee, or are free. I commend South Link Health\u2019s members for their constructive approach in working with the Government to provide affordable primary health care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ec9c899e870433ba384ba5fb9b66ad2\u0022\u003ESteve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen any other reports regarding the future of primary health organisations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fda8df18b7543cfa60b20c059f3cd5c\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: I have seen many reports. The only report that concerns the health sector, however, is the flip-flop by National\u2019s leader and his ever-changing health spokespeople on what they would do with the primary health organisations. He has gone from asking what they were last year to saying they would be gone by lunchtime this year. Meanwhile, his spokespeople have ranged from scrapping them to revisiting the matter. But who knows? One gets dizzy from looking at their twists and turns, and their flip-flops. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236c827bbc0dd4ea7b37cecf0e5245997\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If members interject, they must expect a response. [Interruption] The member is about to leave the Chamber. I will not have him make comments like that. He should be quiet. Supplementary question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225223f37e3efe46689cbbd64b31b442bb\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Judith Collins. I haven\u2019t had my hair done like the Hon Annette King, so there\u2019s no excuse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228286ef66f3264354818ee8ef78646800\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f930527cfb14a58bfd790f9a762ee78\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware of a primary health organisation in the Hawke\u2019s Bay District Health Board area offering special tax-paid taxi rides for people of M\u0101ori and Pasifika descent, which are only available to other New Zealanders based on need; and is she happy that that district health board insists on race-based assistance for some races but needs-based assistance for others?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022287fad4a31714380945f48e2d3614e37\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: Can I suggest the member has a perm. In answer to her question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a886ac63de1b4ce19110fe17fd64533b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I know this is getting into the Christmas spirit, but just reflecting on hairstyling, I want to say that the last bit of Brylcreem I had in my hair was when I was about 9, and I still have quite a lot left. I call the Hon Annette King.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225759711655c349f69fe19294ba8b2918\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not aware of it. If the member would like to provide the information, I will certainly look at it. I can tell her that the Hawke\u2019s Bay board, like those in other parts of New Zealand, does not provide race-based policies; it provides needs-based policies. The sooner that member works out that there are people who have needs, the sooner she will become a better health spokesperson\u2014or maybe she is about to be changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b96b2f004c654216885be9eab891803b\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart\u003C/span\u003E: Why is access to primary health organisations at subsidised rates for elderly New Zealanders still dependent on where people live, and when will she finally ensure that our senior citizens get universal access to subsidised primary health care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226ba8143ae5f454da8bc71a4a482e999\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: The member is quite a few months out of date. Since 1 July this year every person over 65 years of age anywhere in New Zealand in any primary health organisation has had subsidised primary health care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d952cdf0a45b4a0e8d2e1a1891ead273\u0022\u003EHeather Roy\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that primary health organisations that have more than 50 percent of their enrolled patients of M\u0101ori and Pacific Island descent get more Government funding than others, and therefore their patients get cheaper doctors\u2019 visits; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a71fa55fbce430eaa2efc385068e2a5\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: Two years ago when we rolled out the primary health care strategy, we rolled it out into areas with high need, including low-income, M\u0101ori, and Pacific people. That was in the first year, under access funding. Since then we have progressively rolled out money, regardless of where people live, based on age bands. I have never heard the member complain about giving cheaper care to old people\u2014only to M\u0101ori and Pacific people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002210d40e09da624a0a990f4c6dfec82af8\u0022\u003EBroadcasting, Minister\u2014Confidence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228800a4d587c34e519c0ce1e733630713\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Broadcasting; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2e4b68273b54665aaf233749c23de56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2e4b68273b54665aaf233749c23de56\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, because he is also a hard-working, conscientious Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf1b8b488de4cf180578015ff93b72f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is this the same conscientious and hard-working Minister of Broadcasting who has seen Judy Bailey\u2019s salary go from $400,000 to $800,000, despite the fact that the Prime Minister herself said that she was revolted by Paul Holmes\u2019 $760,000 salary; and, what on earth is going on in her ministry when such hypocrisy lies so rampant in our politics?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253ea7d7d7d834a529d6ee2ca563675e3\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: If\u2014and I underline \u201Cif\u201D\u2014the salary is as high as that, the directors appointed by the Government have some explaining to do to shareholding Ministers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022723b612edc2e438b907fef99e31c2820\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister of Broadcasting been able to establish from TVNZ whether in fact the salary is $800,000 a year or thereabouts; if so, and if it is true, will she be requiring the board of TVNZ to resign, as she suggested back in 2000 over the John Hawkesby issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee93c0642eac45c6ad18a3d50a869459\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: It is my understanding that salaries are subject to confidentiality agreements. As I have said, a salary at that level, for the amount of time on air each day, I would consider to be evidence of a culture of extravagance that requires explanation to shareholding Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225edbfe0bcdda4c5dad8ceb3cfe402335\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister be requiring the board of TVNZ to disclose to her or to her Minister what Judy Bailey\u2019s salary is; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a553794dc9ab477c9e5c7d6aab8bd43d\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: It would be my understanding that the Government could not require that to be divulged, but the Government makes it very clear to directors that it does not expect a culture of extravagance in public broadcasting when money can be well deployed to making programmes for the general public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022965dbdd729df4d20ba113950d5d12cc9\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that a number of other questions are set down today related to this issue. It might help the Prime Minister in her answers\u2014and it might help the House to get answers\u2014if she were to be made aware of the fact that Television New Zealand, like all State enterprises, does declare the salaries it pays, in $10,000 bands, in its annual report. Is the Prime Minister really suggesting that she cannot find out about this salary and we have to wait for the annual report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d596ecc6c2544b19ebae80bd1f13ece\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows that that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252f81bba9a0f4946972cbfa40a333b86\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether Judy Bailey received her $400,000 pay increase in a brown paper bag over a meal of fish in an Auckland restaurant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022202ed0c03c3e4f49bc87aa1b2265630f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That question is a little facetious. I am not allowing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255b388d09861439c8234bbb38395d859\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could tell the member to go outside and say that, whereupon I will sue his little pants off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a76504cd988147ebb4ecbe8e78a37d89\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order, either. But I caution members to be careful about what they say inside this House and outside this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022367b0fe2e6624668a2675b421bed6b24\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What has happened to TVNZ\u2019s announcement that it will be introducing and embedding a more transparent and comprehensive remuneration and job banding model in this country; and given that, say, for a 40-hour week Judy Bailey is to receive $384 per hour, is the Prime Minister not embarrassed when a single pensioner receives less than $250 per week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b11323d3f9f14e19b296ae79a21b090a\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I think I have made it abundantly clear that I would consider any such salary level to be evidence of a culture of extravagance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002236b58ad79e8842a98ae636474df80149\u0022\u003ESchools\u2014Enrolment Scheme Legislation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a12ab30749470bafc8acfcdb68788f\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9baca32856c4ce4802e5c496d74d708\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, Lynne Pillay. The Minister will sit down. Lynne Pillay is at the back of the House. She is entitled to be heard in silence, and was not. I will now have her ask her question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4c9ec86ef8347a59f71811780081497\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269e36db0ed1d4bbeb3776cbd8ddd1997\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will not warn members again. I will ask a member to leave if there is any more noise during the asking of a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00221ed0989249ce4798bbc63b235018068f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ed0989249ce4798bbc63b235018068f\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I have recently seen suggestions that children \u201Ccan be herded like cattle to a local school of the Government\u2019s choosing.\u201D Those comments ignore the fact that under current enrolment legislation\u2014passed by a National Government\u2014parents are not forced to send their children to any particular school. In fact, they are guaranteed the right only to send their child to their local school if they so choose. I suspect that once Dr Brash looks at the facts and consults the member for Epsom, he will do yet another flip-flop on this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284143e3077994645a8c7ff596d826373\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: Has the removal of school zoning been considered before?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286e9a912c9dd4c74a491bd077adb1a6e\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. School zoning was abolished under the previous National Government, which was then forced to bring it back in 1998\u2014well supported by Christine Fletcher\u2014in order to combat overcrowding. Removing zoning did not result in parents or students getting greater choice; it resulted in school principals hand-picking their students. This Government believes in the right of students to go to the school next door.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf32721c88eb4acfbf2b9de18bd9ebcf\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That answer was too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022909c04419be4493e8461ae741cb40e64\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister believes that his current rigid zoning policy is so good, why did he put out a press release in November claiming that the number of schools with zones was dropping, and that that was a good thing, when the real figures showed that the number of schools with zones was rising; when will he admit his flip-flop on that issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d013662638444d2802ad9ccbd70bd5c\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: I have already apologised on this matter. I relied on inaccurate figures. I also relied, in making the statements, on the support for zoning from Bill English, who said that abolishing it would not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022514a7d63f90044b982525bc538ca7055\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that school-zoning legislation was reintroduced by the National Government in late 1998, that the legislation had the full support of the ACT party at the time, and that the only person in the House to raise objections to that zoning legislation was one Trevor Mallard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d4adb9dafd8480e9279ce375eb7951c\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I think the legislation that went through at the time could have been better. That is why we improved it when we came into Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EQuestion time interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227d2d82b908c144e78407973d37fc808f\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eb0ea7682d2b4fb9834c3613e8a6931e\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u2014Replies to Written Questions Nos 17295 and 17296\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00225b947f2591244e7daa1a10b849af96fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b947f2591244e7daa1a10b849af96fa\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table two documents. They relate to written questions to the Prime Minister that were lodged on 29 November, and are the two answers received on 7 December, in which she argues that the matter of car registrations is sub judice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf142fe0300049379fc1ac3e08e09626\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table those two answers. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228e01753884f0415e88ed3172b85c2e29\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2564cf5fd9c4b1985717f854131f8e3\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000117\u0022\u003EQuestion time resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022518b4294e8b2485fa1e1b6e675707de6\u0022\u003ETertiary Education Commission\u2014Funding Outcomes\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229388a0afea2e4bdb84997e53cbb3d432\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Does he stand by his statements that: \u201CThe TEC will bring clear strategic direction to the system as a whole.\u201D and \u201CIt is very important to ensure our research efforts and our student enrolments are concentrated in areas of high performance and high strategic relevance.\u201D; if so, is he satisfied with the quality of spending in tertiary education?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u00224bab7aaa3e6f4c5291e4233b990ca04a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bab7aaa3e6f4c5291e4233b990ca04a\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I do stand by those statements, made just last year when the Tertiary Education Commission was launched. I have been very pleased with measures that have been put in place to achieve that goal, such as the Performance-based Research Fund; the Modern Apprenticeships scheme; the centres of research excellence; the programme of industry training; strategic funding for private training establishments; restrictions on aviation, community education, and growth rates; and a new performance measure that will focus on retention and completion; and I look forward to being further satisfied as the Tertiary Education Commission moves into its third calendar year of operation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022959d8a8c9e424d679dd6adf15bb6919b\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that since 2000 he has spent $2.2 billion on diploma and certificate courses in tertiary education, and that 70 percent of the students who enrolled in those diploma and certificate courses did not complete them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d2694878f2649949f7454b380f7ea9a\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I am aware we have inherited a number of programmes from the National Government where we have had to move to a more strategic approach to funding in order to prevent a continuation of the very problem he now complains about, after 9 years of doing not a single thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b33e1ac81a4444ca1a13623ad3864d9\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: What does the Minister think the strategic implications are for the sector\u2014in particular, for the smaller players within it\u2014when institutions are having, realistically, to open for enrolment from August but are not being informed about Tertiary Education Commission funding decisions until mid-December?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3e7dca71a04483bb1b210fcb5525c06\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: The member is referring to the profiles that all institutions have to put in, which are, fundamentally, a funding agreement with the Tertiary Education Commission. All those institutions, many of which I have spoken to personally, understand that this is the first year of their profile and that they are being communicated with verbally by the Tertiary Education Commission, and they are confident they will get their funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c66332c47fa847e0a74506e4bb076d7c\u0022\u003EHelen Duncan\u003C/span\u003E: As an example of the good work the Tertiary Education Commission is doing, can the Minister tell us about its efforts to satisfy itself in relation to the quality of spending in Christchurch Polytechnic\u2019s computing online course?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283cc2c5b7e4f4d6490bbd98eb8cba2da\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a number of occasions when members on the Opposition side of the House have not commenced a supplementary question with a question word, you have pulled them up for that. On this occasion that matter was pointed out to you at the start of the member starting her supplementary question, and I ask you to bring her to order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234df1009888843779c2843c47efeeb31\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: All I will say to the member is that it was Mr Brownlee who originally raised the point. I agreed with him and I thought he made a very sensible point. I now ask the member to re-ask her question, starting with a question word.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8766def205d4e25b3e082952881fc2d\u0022\u003EHelen Duncan\u003C/span\u003E: What progress has been made in the Tertiary Education Commission\u2019s efforts to satisfy itself in relation to the quality of spending in Christchurch Polytechnic\u2019s computing online course?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022841050685df24cb9abb8488e0bddab47\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I am pleased to tell the House today that Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology chair Hector Matthews has issued a media release announcing that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology council has confirmed that the polytechnic will cooperate fully to complete an evaluation by 22 December. It resolved that if the report identified that there are students who have not engaged in the COOL IT course, the polytechnic will work with the Tertiary Education Commission to reach an acceptable solution. It has instructed the management of the polytechnic to continue to work with the commission in a cooperative and supportive manner to bring about an accord on the issue. I thank Mr Matthews for his comments, and I look forward to progress on the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220111234f78be4895931c53a17d30f1c6\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that parents of schoolchildren are selling raffle tickets so they can employ teachers, at the same time as he has spent, during his 4-year reign as Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education), $2.2 billion on formal diploma and certificate courses that 30 percent only of those who enrolled in those courses have finished, which equates to $1.5 billion spent on courses that were never completed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d35c9cb4654646b88ef855656f26a9c6\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, I would have to check those figures, as I check everything from the member because he is so unreliable. I also point out to the member that without this Government we would not have a Performance-based Research Fund, a Modern Apprenticeships scheme, and industry training that is going through the roof. We would not have a Private Training Establishments Strategic Priorities Fund, we would not have controlled the growth of organisations so that we know what we are getting, and we would not have a performance measure. I could go on, but the 4 years of work make the list far too long. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ec4dcb2f0d67495bb505d0511b9c7430\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6 to Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022e758fdcd71e44c6aa4cfa66e2e5ea378\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e758fdcd71e44c6aa4cfa66e2e5ea378\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the member, before he asks the question or during the question, could clarify the word in line four: is it \u201Cprecedence\u201D with a \u201Cts\u201D or \u201Cce\u201D? It is a little confusing at the moment; the two do mean slightly different things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d219842f84e4eceadc02d25cb36d9d3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member raises a very good point. I have only just observed that, not having read the question before, but I tell the member that he has to read it as it is worded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222626ea392dae4b5fa52a4d8745a75c7a\u0022\u003EAotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve\u2014Marine Reserves Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb781017b0fb45809c55122ab4722ad4\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement in his letter to Mr Friend of Outdoor Recreation NZ\u2019s marine committee, regarding the proposed Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve, that: \u201CIt is not possible for any number of submissions in support to create precedence for the future, since the statutory path of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 directs me, as decision maker, to consider my objections received on a marine reserves proposal, not submissions in support. I do not base my decision on the number of objections versus submissions in support,\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d10e59260a7249c19abbb788affcbb8b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is precisely the problem. Now that the member has read it out, we can hear that it is not a spelling mistake he is guilty of; he has just got the wrong word. It should be brought to his attention that he is talking about something that is entirely different from what he has expressed in his question. I thought that the Clerk\u2019s Office should have helped him out at the time, rather than let him come down to the Chamber and be a smart alec, raise silly points of order, and show what a silly boy he is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259cda32a52b64ae29f59f1abd663ac3a\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne\u003C/span\u003E: I draw the House\u2019s attention to the fact that what the member was doing was quoting from a letter from the Minister of Conservation. It was not the member\u2019s quotation but the Minister\u2019s quotation. If there is any error in the quotation, it is actually in the quotation itself, not in its reporting. I appreciate the point that has been made, but I say that the error lies with the original writer, not with the drafter of the question. I make one further point, Mr Speaker: I was concerned to hear you say at the time the original point of order was raised that you had not seen the question. I was under the impression that all questions were vetted by you before they went on to the Order Paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254bba2e15f444300b01a05d4f93e9afc\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and on this occasion I made a mistake; I did not read the question carefully enough. I am occasionally known to make mistakes. [Interruption] I am tempted to comment, but will not. I say that this is a quote from a Minister\u2019s letter. I assume that it is correct, because that is the way the question was originally submitted. It stands, and the Minister must now give his answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286d30e1191734e8eb491f74089bc9d1c\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be better if I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the Minister, which has that exact quote and spelling in it, so that the matter is made clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c28f6ce05b54d72a9777557a375a035\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member seeks leave to table the letter. Is there any objection. There is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccd7baf0fddb4f60afd8d4bbb7e0873e\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229569434a44b74b88806c07f39a89aa9b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I tell the member that this had better be a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cabb593f8ed24ddaa32cee11e8de683f\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I ask you please not to doubt me, Mr Speaker. My point of order is in line with the comments made by the Hon Peter Dunne. The member did not read out correctly either the exact quote of what the Minister said or what is written here on the Order Paper. I draw your attention to the second to last line of the text of the written question, which states: \u201C\u2026 maker, to consider any objections \u2026\u201D The member actually said: \u201C\u2026 maker, to consider my objections \u2026\u201D, and the Hansard will prove that what I am saying to you right now, Mr Speaker, is correct. I think that that brings into question the whole validity of the question, and the worth of having it read.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf406f86b1fa4ea4956f1e416b25c931\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If there is a grammatical error in a question, that does not invalidate the question. In any case, the Minister may answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7ff3d9ddadf454a8c9da6e31b7b7aa2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a grammatical error that my colleague Ron Mark is raising with you; he is saying that when the member got to his feet he did not read the question out as it appears on the Order Paper. The member just makes one mistake after another.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a04136140454407b7e4c7337c40e655\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I want to ask Mr Baldock one question. Did he read it out correctly?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8fd53be81524b998887bd4e9ba6983a\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: No, it seems that I have made a mistake and have misquoted one word in the question. I should have said \u201Cto consider any objections\u201D rather than \u201Cto consider my objections\u201D. I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220df1e7c732ac442a8cd189707d5bb9eb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u002264ef0eb976d7416d9615a1e4e63ddd28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264ef0eb976d7416d9615a1e4e63ddd28\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes, because the letter went on to state: \u201CThe Minister must consider each objection against the criteria set out in section 5 of the Marine Reserves Act.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286aa1a70598b49c1b8ea95fba9b91f8e\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Department of Conservation\u2019s community relations manager, Warwick Murray, in his comments in the Rodney Times on Thursday, 4 November, and Auckland Conservator Rob McCallum, in his press release on 9 December and again in his comments on Radio New Zealand on 10 December, make such a fuss about how many submissions were in favour compared with how many were against the reserve, and does that not reveal the fact that the Minister\u2019s staff do not understand the Act they are meant to implement; so will the Minister therefore call them in for retraining on the finer points of the law, and if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd07c2c0e82c4e5abfb7af7af2858165\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member is correct in that the number of submissions in favour or against is not a particularly relevant consideration. We take into account the criteria for judging a marine reserve, and I will certainly make sure that the people concerned are aware of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7fe598f1fe44a6e89c39eefb9eb48e5\u0022\u003EEdwin Perry\u003C/span\u003E: What did the ministry base its proposal for the Mimiwhangata marine reserve on, when neither the local iwi, Ng\u0101ti Wai, nor the local communities bordering the proposed reserve were properly consulted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cd5fa5675894b579a4c0f949bab0846\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I believe that in the setting up of any marine reserve, it is absolutely essential that local communities are consulted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6fd2dfe764746149251bf2211650b68\u0022\u003EDave Hereora\u003C/span\u003E: Are submissions in support of marine reserves considered when decisions are made on reserve applications?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221944fd10f33146b4b14d80fcac1eb1a3\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the, Minister can take into account submissions in support of a marine reserve, but the Marine Reserves Act spells out that the first task in making a decision on a marine reserve is to consider whether to uphold any objection before considering the overall merits of any application.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef01b0089d134dffbaca71014d2da05b\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the independent review of the marine reserve proposal, which he has announced will take place, will investigate claims that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand was informed of the department\u2019s intentions earlier than other stakeholders and was asked to drum up submissions in support of the reserve, in order to seek to override the substantial objections from recreational users of the area proposed for the reserve and from the residents of Great Barrier Island; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc794a76971e459185a96619bab84c4f\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will give the House an assurance that the independent review will cover the process very thoroughly, and the Minister will look at that very carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022363c0ec5cd064c769410b706c886d422\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons\u003C/span\u003E: How will the axing of 13 Department of Conservation staff, half of them scientists and some of them working on marine issues, progress the work to identify and protect key marine biodiversity in marine reserves?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225401343c3c1b44168b916e4dbf5f60b5\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is an operational matter. The Department of Conservation has had a substantial increase in its budget over the years but, like all other departments, it has to live within the confines of its budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291b0e892545343ba906f64018023fcec\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that Ng\u0101ti Rehua hap\u016B of Ng\u0101ti Wai objects to the director-general\u2019s application for the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve, as do the Auckland City Council, adjoining landowners, the Recreational Fishing Council, Option4, and the Big Game Fishing Council, representing hundreds of thousands of hard-working, taxpaying New Zealanders\u2014or will this be just another case of a sham process of pretending to hear submissions, while the department does what it wants, regardless?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022763bd26056404f36a807b1baca2efa12\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it is not a sham process, at all. The legislation passed by this House, which I am sure that member supports, sets out very clearly the criteria for objections, and if one objection can be upheld to show that the objector has suffered undue adverse effects\u2014just one objector\u2014then the marine reserve proposal stops in its tracks. I am sure the member would see that as a very fair process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022740863cfefec48d6a95dc76327feaaea\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister offer an apology to long-time residents and landowners like the Mabeys for the damage done to their reputations by the unethical scheming of Department of Conservation staff, who tried to persuade them to support the marine reserve by telling them that they would be able to continue to fish in the reserve adjacent to their land, and who published that in the draft proposal without the knowledge of the Mabeys, giving the appearance to other residents that the Mabeys had sold out, when that was clearly not the case, since they had refused to accept rights others would not have and still remain opposed to the marine reserve to this day; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222730451de56a42f4b58ccd0ed0e5e900\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I reject entirely that Department of Conservation staff have acted unethically. Department of Conservation staff have obviously been in discussion with the Mabeys. They have made them an offer, which they have rejected, and they are entitled to do exactly that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7107d9cebd645f99fe991071876b5ca\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a few documents. The first is the press release in the Rodney Times by Department of Conservation staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1fc133b00bc49b086f4a916be710a07\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave has been sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4d7ce5c2aaa4265b5ddf4a70f830767\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Radio New Zealand interview with the conservator.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5686e6651754baabbc261d47393b429\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: I also seek leave to table the press release regarding the majority of submitters being in favour of the Department of Conservation proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229656d95fe5ad40a48fbe1b52d0e51e35\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave has been sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002279b59373a1f84991ae6cb90baa7bca34\u0022\u003ESecurity\u2014National Security\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adb46b4232114198af0c3161fc24242f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: What steps, if any, is she prepared to take to ensure our national security is protected?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u002282d708cd72fc4278944f2beb81bd98ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282d708cd72fc4278944f2beb81bd98ca\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Clearly, Part 4A of the Immigration Act, inserted in 1999, has not functioned effectively. The Government is now focused on drawing up law that can be effective in protecting New Zealand\u2019s national security, and we will work with other parties that share our concern about the evident flaws in the current law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228362d4ba4e2a4354915a1f3db90b6984\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister give the same high priority she has accorded to other legislation rushed through before Christmas to my member\u2019s bill, which seeks to urgently amend the Immigration Act to close off the legal loophole that allowed the Supreme Court to free convicted Algerian Ahmed Zaoui; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228aaede180dbd4049864ff2f1b34be3f9\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I do not think that it would be appropriate to support the member\u2019s bill, which is a simple piece of legislation that would see this Parliament passing law to put Mr Zaoui back in jail. I do not think that would be appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c5ee63d373b46eaa0fa3d32c65b2aeb\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: What sort of welcome mat for terrorists is her Government rolling out with its totally incompetent handling of the Zaoui case, in which a man with terrorist convictions who had been kicked out of three Western countries could flush his passport down an airplane toilet, claim refugee status, be showered in millions of dollars of legal aid, and can now qualify for a weekly emergency welfare benefit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a87fccab9d5046fea99b56d03e2a5325\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: It would be a strange person who thought that 2 years in jail was a welcome mat. That particular welcome mat was provided for by legislation passed by the National Government in 1999. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e3a22ff75ba4ac89892e9514f782ba2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am warning members that I am having no interjections during questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225918b6b6a6da43ae904a352c5eee5ccc\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister, in her proposed amendments to the security risk certificate procedure, trying to take away or limit the longstanding right of judges to determine whether someone is unjustly detained and give that person bail, and why does she think that Governments with political agendas should be able to use national security as an excuse to detain people without charge and without full recourse to courts to get bail?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275df8129f049494fb75375693cfcc29f\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: A balance has to be struck between the requirements of national security and individual liberties, and there will be times when an individual\u2019s liberties are constrained because the interests of national security override that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a390c6cee124339a5c7041f239d40be\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister support her security officials\u2019 view that Mr Zaoui is a security risk; if so, what does she intend to do about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea0cf2846500431097dbf58dd8636919\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I have never offered a substantive opinion on the Zaoui case. What I would like is for the law to work effectively. The law operates with the Director of Security, on his own judgment, without direction from me as Minister, issuing a security risk certificate. The procedure passed into law in 1999 says that decision should then be reviewed by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Two years after this man arrived, because this law created a litigator\u2019s paradise, that review has not been able to begin. That is what is wrong with the law and that is what I aim to fix, and I trust I will have the cooperation of the member\u2019s party, New Zealand First, and National for doing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022494883c5957a45b3b9d5906781b4c630\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: When?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f6e97c808b3451db0161eee19d0a54c\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Next year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221740dd94d79d410884cff6d78de81915\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Prime Minister gave a long and quite interesting reply, but it was not actually to the question that she was asked. She was in no way asked for her opinion on the security status of Mr Zaoui\u2014members in this House know that that is not a matter for Ministers. What she was actually asked was a very exact question: \u201CDoes she support her officials in reaching the opinion that Mr Zaoui is a security risk?\u201D, and that question she did not actually answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc79f23491c54ac0a54177d6e4987f32\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thought the Prime Minister did address the question. She gave a very long answer and made many points in her reply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022809f78c0565b4196ac4d7f8b609e97e4\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister able to give the House any assurance, in view of the litany of events that she has just outlined, that the Zaoui case can be brought to swift resolution and that he will not now spend his next 2 years on bail awaiting a decision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280ec0d903de449beaa859e40bc55bb09\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Because the law has created a litigator\u2019s paradise, I cannot guarantee that he will not spend the next 2 years on bail. The Crown has, of course, appealed the Court of Appeal decision. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear it. It is going to hold a hearing on that matter in February, and it will then, no doubt, deliberate on whether it wants to hear it, and if it does want to hear it, then, no doubt, it will take some time to find the time to schedule it. It may or may not uphold the Court of Appeal decision, and we still do not have the beginning of the review. That is why I say that this law clearly cannot work satisfactorily, and this country is entitled to national security law that enables people, about whom serious issues of security risk have been raised, to have those issues speedily judged. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1e065b4466e47b5ad007f6849f68fd9\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister trying to toughen up the security risk certificate procedures when judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, like the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, can deal with classified evidence in confidence and deal with national security threats; and is that not a better approach than the security risk certificate procedure, where the final say lies with a Minister of the Crown whose judgment will be distorted by political considerations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022035200d0383b4fdf9124c85cbbfb30bd\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: There are so many errors of fact in that question, one does not know where to begin. In the first case the Refugee Status Appeals Authority did not see classified security information. I might also observe, secondly, that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, without hearing any evidence from the Governments of France or Belgium, condemned their legal systems as somehow unworthy and improper in the decisions that they reached. It did not appear to take into account the fact that Mr Zaoui had appealed to the European Court and failed, that he had been denied entry into the United Kingdom, and that he was deported from Switzerland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9e4207d92654c4db6919b2a62a549bc\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister is misleading the House there, because the Supreme Court\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f575be9d33dd43fe98255aa9e7671d60\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member is trying to litigate an answer. He cannot do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022125ca788b4a04049be67ebefb91e0993\u0022\u003ETelevision New Zealand\u2014Newsreader\u0027s Salary\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af0a83b051ef468980f24bb78f3281f4\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Broadcasting: What actions, if any, does he propose to take, given reports in today\u2019s Dominion Post that Television One news anchor, Judy Bailey, has almost doubled her salary to $800,000 a year and that he is angry at the size of the increase?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u00228fd469ad98c649988889b7cb9331bc59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228fd469ad98c649988889b7cb9331bc59\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting):\u003C/span\u003E The salaries paid to staff of Television New Zealand are a matter for the board and management of the company to determine. The board is accountable to the Minister of Finance and me as shareholding Ministers in the company, and we will be seeking an explanation from the board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee66e588ec2144d8bc2a09e211bebfed\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Can the House take it from the answer given by the Minister, and those given by the Prime Minister previously, that all that the Government intends to do is blow a lot smoke over this particular issue, then do absolutely nothing about this excessive, extraordinarily large salary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203425f87972c44f586ee82ec47c84480\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: As other answers to questions have stated, the Government remains strongly opposed to salaries of the level reported in today\u2019s Dominion Post being paid within public service organisations. However, company law determines the extent to which Ministers can become involved in those Government bodies that are companies. It requires the business affairs of a company to be managed by, or under the direct supervision of, the board. Thus decisions on salaries paid to staff are matters for the board and management. However, those people are accountable to two shareholding Ministers, and they will be asked to be accountable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251a5f2ff0b654608a93a23523776f61b\u0022\u003EMark Peck\u003C/span\u003E: How satisfied is he with the performance of Television New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1156a783a2a49b4b1babc5e76c3e3f3\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: Overall, I am satisfied with Television New Zealand\u2019s performance against its objectives of giving effect to its charter while maintaining a commercial performance. TVNZ\u2019s programme line-up is increasingly more charter oriented, and it has committed itself to a significant increase in local content. At the same time, TVNZ maintained its commercial performance by generating a record level of advertising revenue of $335 million in the year ended June 2004. This Government sees broadcasting as a key element in developing national identity, not as a commercial enterprise to be sold off before lunchtime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dcd075a9247405c8e8dd4773da60f18\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government putting any taxpayers\u2019 money into TVNZ when it spends an extra $400,000 to keep Judy Bailey, given that if she went to TV3 or Prime more New Zealanders would get to see her, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8dbdd6104a9441985e18287017b617f\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I should correct the last assumption that was in that question; Television New Zealand clearly is still the leading television company in the country in terms of ratings. The reason we provide charter funding is to see more New Zealand programmes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f68a7f9f651448df811ebb4adbdf96c5\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister taken the time to find out whether the board of Television New Zealand knew that the new salary for Judy Bailey would be around $800,000 a year, and has he asked the board whether it gave its approval for such an extravagant salary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250c099e66b4b4662a9aab452d5bd13c0\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: My understanding is that a remuneration committee negotiates salaries within Television New Zealand. My understanding is that the board has full accountability for those decisions, because it is advised of such decisions. As I said before, the board is accountable to its two shareholding Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226326566252194466a40ff37081692f1c\u0022\u003ETelevision New Zealand\u2014Salaries and Funding\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022917e0eba15694fc1996c40ef4c777b3b\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reported comments that she was revolted by Paul Holmes\u2019 $760,000 salary and that money paid to top Television New Zealand presenters makes her own pay look like \u201Cpetty cash\u201D, and how much taxpayers\u2019 money has the Government put into Television New Zealand in the last 12 months?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u00226b42eea11850465a832da2e9a54cf05c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b42eea11850465a832da2e9a54cf05c\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I stand by what I said, which was that there was public revulsion at that salary level. And yes, any examination of such figures would show that my salary is, indeed, petty cash by comparison, as indeed is the member\u2019s. I can also advise the member that in 2004-05 a total of $30 million is to be paid directly to TVNZ, consisting of charter funding, and for transmission to remote communities. As well, $3.075 million is from New Zealand On Air.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255a537b746be4c0a96bd03c09df7205f\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Will that $30 million come under review in the coming year, if in fact it is determined that Television New Zealand is, to quote the Prime Minister, \u201Cfunding a culture of extravagance\u201D, and in light of the fact that the money is being used in part to stomp on TV3 and Prime as private sector competition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce840395809b48c19b5d521a933f629a\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I do not think that the last assertion would be true. There is a reason for having public television, charter television, and that is to have at least one television company in this country that is dedicated to reflecting the charter objectives on screen. But clearly, the board of Television New Zealand is accountable to the Government for how it expends public moneys, and the Minister of Broadcasting has outlined that he expects it to be held accountable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217313d27490f4567bdb54aef723f1513\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: What does she expect the Minister of Broadcasting to do with the board of Television New Zealand if it went to him and simply said that it believed that that was the right thing for it to do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a9489725220440e9d6e24e34f0e013f\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Obviously, I would not want to prejudge what the board will say to the shareholding Ministers. However, I believe that the shareholding Ministers are certainly due an explanation if the report in the Dominion is true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022493ea9748c8b49398a44367a705e1605\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: Is she objecting to the amount that Judy Bailey gets paid, and, if so, why pick on her, and what about Mike Williams, a Government appointee to some eight Crown entities or State-owned enterprises, who, I am told, earns $542,000, while working full-time for the Labour Party, and does she think there is public revulsion over this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e690e9586444c1fb3aebd87fe2bf033\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: This Government appoints people from across the political spectrum to boards, and I can say that we have been rather more open-minded than our predecessors in that respect. We would also expect that anyone appointed to a State-owned enterprises board would really not be pulling in large sums of money for 4 minutes on air a day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022777b890ff6534ec791a668f183c4b0b9\u0022\u003EAlgerian Refugee\u2014Solicitor-General\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282945409ec1a44ef8f5dadd76fa7da37\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Attorney-General: Does she agree with the comments of the Solicitor-General, who, when it was put to him in the Supreme Court last week that there was no suggestion violence might occur in New Zealand as a result of any activities Mr Zaoui might be involved in, replied: \u201CI think that\u2019s fair, Your Honour.\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u00224df74060449c4787bbb329a4e3faa00a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224df74060449c4787bbb329a4e3faa00a\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, as I understand it in the context of whether Mr Zaoui should be released on bail, there was no evidence that he is personally a violent person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0d8bc4a94414f24bf19c8417deaddc7\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Attorney-General then encourage the immigration Minister to apply section 114N of the Immigration Act, which allows him to cancel the application of the security risk certificate applying to Mr Zaoui, particularly in the light of the admission by the Solicitor-General that Mr Zaoui presents no real threat?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ac33bb5b0d441289dbfae6d89ff702\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, it would be inappropriate for me to interfere with the proper exercise of the Minister of Immigration\u2019s powers and responsibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279f87abf-aaab-44ff-96db-2e33d763670a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e3b1228acfb4e5db5f06224075b203f\u0022\u003ELuamanuvao Winnie Laban\u003C/span\u003E: Did the Solicitor-General refer the Supreme Court to any evidence relating to the possibility of violence resulting from Mr Zaoui\u2019s presence in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c06f9ed09a0c4ddabae633e39835d210\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the Solicitor-General referred the court to the Director of Security\u2019s summary of allegations and reasoning in making the security risk certificate about Mr Zaoui. The director concluded that the activities of which he, Mr Zaoui, was convicted in Belgium and France were clandestine, deceptive, or threatened the safety of persons. The Swiss Government believed that his activity in Switzerland \u201Chad led to acts of violence, and even attacks, in Switzerland\u201D, and that \u201CActivities of this kind in New Zealand by Mr Zaoui, or by others attracted to New Zealand by his presence here, could threaten the safety of New Zealanders.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ac91e1b15e341a1b8d8c05dfb673bca\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: On the matter of the national security certificate, is it Government policy that someone deemed to be a risk to national security should be entitled to receive a welfare benefit in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cc0c40ad4c940dc8292ab38a3372d7e\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: It is not a matter of policy. It would be a matter of law and of whether there was eligibility, according to the law, in that instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f7b1a3ebfca4762ab58c023177d0242\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Attorney-General disagree with the Prime Minister\u2019s comments just made that there is substantive material that was not properly considered by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in relation to Mr Zaoui, in light of the facts that the Supreme Court judges challenged the Crown to produce evidence that had not been dealt with by the authority, and that it was not provided even in affidavits or in the court hearing last Thursday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251221a7730dc456291431e39216c4b73\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: It is a statement of fact that the security material was not considered by the refugee appeal authority or the Supreme Court. In fact, the frustration of this process has been to get that matter considered by the proper parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292401130a8ba4ef5ad8e426b9288128d\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: What instructions does the Solicitor-General have from the Attorney-General to make the statement that has been referred to by Mr Locke with regard to Mr Zaoui\u2014a statement that now severely prejudices the inspector-general\u2019s final certificate in this matter, because it presumes that Mr Zaoui is not a danger to New Zealand, and a statement that, if it were true, would prevent the inspector-general from issuing any form of certificate against Mr Zaoui, resulting in his remaining in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0738c5cc6094e5da1edbbff96a36835\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: The important point is that those comments were made in the context of an application to see whether Mr Zaoui should be released on bail. They were not done in the context of the substantive issue, and I think that if the comments are seen in that context, they do not necessarily carry the implications made by that member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d98ef4ae2cd249f5b3417efd026ab6f6\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: In the light of the Prime Minister\u2019s concern about Mr Zaoui\u2019s \u201Cfuture hanging up in the air after 2 years\u201D, why did the Crown oppose bail for Mr Zaoui last Thursday, following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on 25 November that it had the power to grant bail to Mr Zaoui, and why did the Crown propose his detention at the M\u0101ngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, when it had previously said that was not an option?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244f63b9be07a4366b3976a2b5be51228\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: It was the Crown\u2019s contention that Mr Zaoui was a risk to security, because that was consistent with the certificate that had been issued to date. Therefore, it was consistent that the Crown should argue that there be some form of detention. The Supreme Court, as it is perfectly entitled to, did not agree with that and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail. The previous hearing was not for the Crown to take unto itself the law; it was in fact for it to abide by the law, as articulated by the court. That is what the Crown has done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209ca0ef9413f4c94bcad78b5082fe0f9\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: What consideration is the Attorney-General giving to briefing someone other than the Solicitor-General to handle the final aspect of this case, bearing in mind that the Crown and the Solicitor-General have been beaten at every point by a very junior lawyer\u2014an obviously very able one\u2014and that the time may have come to brief someone in private practice who may be somewhat hungrier than the Solicitor-General? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a69fdc63d0e444a8b35910443ab91e5\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: In fact, the Crown has won at every level except the Supreme Court in most of these matters, and it has been seeking a clarification of the law. I do not believe that any better representation could have given, given the state of the law as it is at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c190686dd2e4ae8ab0db386d4501d76\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Attorney-General agree that her previous statement is a bit wrong, in that it was the High Court that decided that the SIS should provide a summary of allegations to Mr Zaoui, contrary to the Crown\u2019s contention, that it was the High Court that forced the previous inspector-general off the case, even though the Crown was defending that inspector-general, and that the Crown has lost all five substantive proceedings; and will it be re-looking at the whole case to see where it went wrong\u2014perhaps in not considering human rights as much as it should have done?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6b400603f4a4ef692a41227a3529b0c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I was generous to the member. His question was long and not properly planned. The Minister may comment on two of the questions asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221c285b00dc7464398d2fa67ce69fbb3\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise. I thought the question was in the context of bail, and certainly we had won the previous two cases before the matter got to the Supreme Court on that issue. In terms of whether human rights is a matter that should have been considered, that is precisely what we sought guidance from the court on. We were certainly always in a position to be able to release the information the member referred to. Finally, on the state of the law, it is apparent, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that the law does need a review, and it will be having it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a04039838bc14be6ab6d86f539502412\u0022\u003ESpring Hill Prison, Waikato\u2014Consultation Fees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ba332e600e2476ea2a097e45613ad29\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Corrections: Does he still stand by his comment \u201CI consider the $1.3 million figure to be excessive\u201D with regard to consultation costs for Spring Hill prison, and does he consider there to be any further excessive spending on this project?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6e26ad97488412b842b544c93e6f3ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6e26ad97488412b842b544c93e6f3ed\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Yes and no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250a9d05b404845039065843d19c31dcd\u0022\u003EDr Paul Hutchison\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister think that taxpayers will be pleased or outraged, when they discover that his figure of June 2004 was that earthworks and services for Spring Hill would cost approximately $28 million, but by November the estimated cost had increased to $38.8 million\u2014a massive $10.8 million increase in 5 months?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd79b645201742e4b81fce05f0d98bce\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, those figures are estimates, as the member will well know\u2014[Interruption] Calm down, Hopoate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236373405f0184a0f86ecbec02743cc88\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Interjections can get out of hand, but on that occasion the Minister knows that what he said was out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b47d34a9aae441f0a57db33d7e1aa542\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d55bb67332cd46eeb59c967891175922\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Now please answer the question, and no more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289430e193b0d4b66b5b998eebdc5d77f\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The member will also know that, given the current performance of the Government and the fabulous economy that we are now experiencing, there is pressure in the economy everywhere. Construction is booming, and costs are rising for diesel and labour as a result. Therefore, there are some changes in estimated costs. But the member will also know that this goes back to the Budget process. All the figures are available. I welcome him to come to my office. I will provide the officials and give him a full briefing on the whole matter so he can get up to speed on the whole issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221932835a368d4eac8ef0f0e9a73825a0\u0022\u003EDr Paul Hutchison\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that buying land for a prison near Meremere for $2.3 million, then discovering that it was necessary to spend about $38.8 million on earthmoving due to the original site being suitable, when there were 46 sites to choose from, is a gross waste of taxpayers\u2019 money; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252d6a011b6da489296c1c3cb45c1ac2e\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: No, because an exhaustive process went on in looking for the right site. I am not an engineer, but the member should know that any construction such as this requires earthworks. Part of the reason, actually, is to make sure that any visible pollution, which that member opposed right from the start, is able to be minimised. So this is good value for money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e6646583db14081a621d5170fddf29f\u0022\u003EDr Paul Hutchison\u003C/span\u003E: How does he think the elderly, distraught with news that The Salvation Army is exiting their nursing homes due to Government policy, will feel when they discover the cost per bed at Spring Hill prison will be $384,000 compared with the cost per nursing home bed, which is on average $90,000\u2014a quarter the cost of a prison bed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f7fb267aba94a30ba25c1ca9342419a\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I think those people will appreciate that this Government is tough on crime and has had to build more prisons and more prison beds after 9 years of total limp-wristed inactivity from the National Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221600df57634d410fb98f678431264ae1\u0022\u003ELabour Market\u2014Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc6cfc346dfb407a955b32e5f1cb0ad1\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Labour: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand labour market?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u002246c365c761c7472cbd358b6fdb58254b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246c365c761c7472cbd358b6fdb58254b\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I have seen several reports showing that the New Zealand labour market is in exceptionally good shape: over 2 million New Zealanders are in work; unemployment is at 3.8 percent, the lowest level in two decades; paid parental leave is in place; the minimum wage has risen five times in 5 years; New Zealand employers plan to take on more staff than employers in other Asia-Pacific countries, according to an international survey out today; and employers and unions are working with the Government to boost New Zealand workplace productivity\u2014fabulous news from a fabulous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a04596e8330c43ce82c0539ee07ae4e8\u0022\u003EHon Mark Gosche\u003C/span\u003E: What further reports has he received regarding New Zealand\u2019s labour policies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df200c1b1a84484687269bc6d1ae6df7\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I have seen reports from someone opposing the Employment Relations Act, 4 weeks\u2019 annual leave, and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I have recently seen reports showing that that person now supports those measures. I am sure that Father Christmas will be bringing a new pair of flip-flops to Don Brash, given that his old ones have worn out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022add371ffc8024e02b0c07dc01a53354d\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that the most recent statistics show that the number of people working, as a percentage of those who are available for and are seeking work, has increased a mere 0.6 percent since 1996, whilst the number of people on a sickness benefit has increased by 35.4 percent since the year 2000; if he is aware of that, would he agree that the picture is not quite as rosy as he makes out?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221754fcc908d943088ec5905f7a560b46\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I would not. I think the member is quite aware of two really important pieces of information: firstly, that there are now more than 2 million New Zealanders in work, which is a very important thing; and, secondly, that the unemployment rate is now 3.8 percent. I am advised that, as a result, there are now 16 percent fewer beneficiaries overall than there have been since about the year 2000. I think New Zealand will be congratulating this Government on the fabulous work it has done in the labour-market area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b492d034874941729178c7024eb8b4b5\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the statistics I referred to that I obtained from the Parliamentary Library, for the Minister\u2019s enlightenment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002266c3a1bda7b9484f8d01f97676bf0d78\u0022\u003EQuestions to Members\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d0cebcb48bd47c8a4a64583a05aac53\u0022\u003EImmigration\u2014English Language Tests\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296e7de9b36eb48999b3435109b2f4eb5\u0022\u003EKENNETH WANG (ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Has the committee met to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and 7,296 others requesting a review of the new English language immigration test, which was presented on 17 December 2002; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u0022f54f12096c9443efaae0aff6c416be64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f54f12096c9443efaae0aff6c416be64\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee):\u003C/span\u003E Although the committee has had a couple of informal discussions about the petition, it has not yet formally met to consider it, simply because of pressure of other business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202287a3b2d2541268db8bec91e271750\u0022\u003EKenneth Wang\u003C/span\u003E: Given that over 7,000 people have signed this petition, and it has been with the committee for 2 years, does he consider it to be a low priority; if not, will he commit to considering it in the next 3 months?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bd844d25cf14df69a0bcec9cb5f8024\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: The committee adopted the procedure of dealing with the petitions before it in the chronological order in which they had been received. As some of the petitions before us dated back to 1999, we accorded those greater priority. Whether the committee wishes to give this petition priority within the next 3 months is a matter for the committee to decide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c03874a656b4c1dbd62770758a4ecc7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why would the committee give this petition greater priority just because 7,296 people had signed it, when by the Government\u2019s own admission there are now 300,000 people in New Zealand who cannot speak English?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022934c6a4db6ae4dc8a457cd1fdfffd7bc\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in response to the earlier question, we give our priority according to the chronological date on which the petitions were received, not the number of people who signed them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002248b169a7d9944db19f31678322d72f32\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aba0b941dad74ee4a95bf0ad8c3a94fb\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a57f486ea4844c128ecb8b72e81156b0\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, and any bills into which those bills may be divided; the first reading of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill; the introduction and first reading of the Prisoners\u2019 and Victims\u2019 Claims Bill; Government notice of motion No. 1; the first readings of the Overseas Investment Bill, the Securities Legislation Bill, the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Education Amendment Bill, the Coroners Bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill, and the Fiordland Marine Management Bill; the passing through its remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill; and Government notice of motion No. 2. The motion is moved in order to complete the Government\u2019s programme before the House rises for the summer adjournment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e13c922e0a204b1eb287ebdd7a2bb93a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e13c922e0a204b1eb287ebdd7a2bb93a\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Before you put that motion, Mr Speaker, on behalf of New Zealand First I seek leave for an addition to the urgency motion\u2014to add the Immigration Amendment Bill in my name to the urgent business of the House, it being a matter of critical importance to this country\u2019s security.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a6ae710d72c4956ae76cfa881f92b36\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to add that. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbbb4fae396c435e887fa64e9af601e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbbb4fae396c435e887fa64e9af601e5\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First made it very clear to the Government that we had no desire to join the committee being set up under Government motion No. 1, which is part of the urgency motion. We do not believe that the Government has the right to do so despite our clear view we do not wish to join this committee and the fact that we believe it to be a sham and a waste of Parliament\u2019s time and our time, as well. We do not believe that any other party in this House can force us to be members of that committee by simply adding it to the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c73d36f783a3459cbae3c0f82bf667b8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00225502d09a84c244c0aa3f2bf6482f031a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225502d09a84c244c0aa3f2bf6482f031a\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to you is: how can it not be a point of order? Surely a political party has a right to choose whether it belongs to a special select committee. The National Party will not be joining this select committee and we have made that abundantly clear, as well. Even if this House were to muster enough votes to put the committee together on this basis, we will not be there. Why is it that this has to be done under urgency, and how is it that a Government can propose a nomination like this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f7c684e2fbc4986ad140bfe17ebe7bf\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member should read the Standing Orders. It is a matter for debate when the House gets to that motion. It is not a point or order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u00222d81a1065d3643e58b83db4f8b24838d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d81a1065d3643e58b83db4f8b24838d\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E A couple of points of order\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b61998d66c0c4b58acaa7e7a65720e20\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be seated or he will leave. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c92990065731400892e7fdd95a10b5b7\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: A couple of points of order ago the House denied leave for Mr Peters to have his Immigration Amendment Bill considered. The National Party considers matters of national security to be of the highest importance. We presume that the Government objects to Mr Peters\u2019 bill on the basis of its retrospective nature. Therefore, I seek leave for the House to include in the motion the Immigration Amendment Bill in the name of Mr Peters, without the retrospective clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210250ed3118c4bd6b82841c70c5cfa71\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1db58cabf334a27b1c6e64a7ba26fc0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1db58cabf334a27b1c6e64a7ba26fc0\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E That being the case, I seek leave for the words \u201CNew Zealand First\u201D and the number \u201C1\u201D, which are in the second to last line of Government notice of motion No. 1, to be removed from the notice of motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b55ed499e7a24b80b9e0f866d5d840a1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf201dd7fd2e4bcf91bf0e86d5c9071d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf201dd7fd2e4bcf91bf0e86d5c9071d\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I make a similar request to the House\u2014that the words \u201CNew Zealand National\u201D and the number \u201C2\u201D be removed from that motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285004286163c42c8a7a103962ca9eb1e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc2c4820713f477ba5b3d07ca1f967e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc2c4820713f477ba5b3d07ca1f967e1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I just make it clear that the Government will be making available House time if necessary should parties change their mind. I note that New Zealand First also declined to join the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee but later joined it in a very positive fashion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d7208c5314be4e23a0573faa1f796bd1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c53685b3134b4f7880818227213ab4b7\u0022\u003EAquaculture Reform Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d29283aaca5e44369a2c62ade0a00c9e\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022d38445c5f0ef4e1a93b4082948afb4b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d38445c5f0ef4e1a93b4082948afb4b5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a second time. The Aquaculture Reform Bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Acts of 1983 and 1996 to secure a sustainable future for New Zealand\u2019s aquaculture industry. It defines aquaculture\u2019s place in the marine environment, and addresses shortcomings in poorly integrated coastal planning, aquaculture, and fisheries management regimes. The bill balances economic development, environmental sustainability, and community concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EA significant aspect of the bill is that it resolves the unfinished business of the 1992 fisheries settlement. The bill provides for full and final settlement of post-1992 iwi claims to commercial aquaculture in the coastal marine area. The bill deals with the spatial aspects that were left unfinished by the fisheries settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill as reported back now includes a number of important changes. I thank the Primary Production Committee for its suggestions; I believe that those will improve the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EIt is recognised that the existing dual regime under the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Act could not cope with the overload of marine-farming applications. It also led to higher processing costs, delays, and poor environmental results. The bill addresses those issues and lifts the uncertainty that has hung over the aquaculture industry since the 1980s. It has taken a lot of work and consultation. Much of the bill\u2019s form is a direct result of considerable consultation with industry and local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003ELet us be clear about what this bill means for the aquaculture industry. The bill makes the Resource Management Act the main legislation for managing aquaculture. That will enable councils to effectively manage aquaculture, and encourage the aquaculture industry to develop in a sustainable way. Under the reforms, new aquaculture will take place in aquaculture management areas, which regional councils will implement through their coastal plans or which can be initiated by a private plan change. Aquaculture management areas will be created by the plan change process. Affected parties and the public will have a say over where aquaculture should be allowed to take place. Industry can initiate a facilitated private plan change, and if successful will have preferential allocation of space. All marine farms with existing coastal permits to occupy space will be deemed to be aquaculture management areas unless those areas are identified in the plan or proposed plan as being unsuitable for aquaculture. Existing farms under a Resource Management Act regime will continue for the life of their coastal permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill contains transitional provisions to move the existing marine-farming authorisations granted under the Fisheries Act or Marine Farming Act into the new regime. Marine Farming Act farms will have Resource Management Act consents for 20 years, with one right of extension at the end of that period, provided that the farm remains in an aquaculture management area. Marine farmers will no longer require a marine-farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983. Their activity will be managed through the coastal permit under the Resource Management Act. Marine farmers will be recognised for the work they undertake in developing plan changes. We also want to provide greater certainty for existing marine farmers on the renewal of a consent. When a marine farm resource consent expires, if the farm is still within an aquaculture management area and the operation remains similar, the incumbent\u2019s application will be considered first. Where the existing farmer is using the space properly, we want to provide that he or she continues to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003ECertainty brings benefits both to the industry and to the community. However, we do not believe that rights in perpetuity are appropriate for what is, after all, public space. The bill seeks to balance competing interests, providing protections for fishing under the quota management system with an undue adverse effects test. The select committee has recommended provision of an opportunity for court review of any decisions made under that test, and in the interests of transparency and, ultimately, fairness I agree that that is an important addition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EPart 5 addresses M\u0101ori interests in marine farming. It provides iwi with, where possible, an allocation of an area equivalent to 20 percent of the total marine-farming space allocated since 1992, and with 20 percent of any new marine-farming space. This proposal is a full and final settlement of M\u0101ori claims to commercial marine-farming space post - September 1992. That represents a sound basis for M\u0101ori and the marine-farming sector to move forward. The select committee has recommended that iwi are allocated areas that are more manageable, with fewer isolated blocks. That allocation model better fits with the planning process for developing and allocating aquaculture management areas. Initially, marine-farming space allocated to M\u0101ori will be provided to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to hold for direct allocation to iwi\u2014those same iwi that are entitled to receive an allocation of inshore fisheries quota under the 1992 deed of settlement. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will hold those settlement assets separately from the assets it holds in trust under the Maori Fisheries Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EIt is clear that aquaculture was deliberately left out of the 1992 fisheries settlement by the then Government, and that it has remained the unfinished business of that agreement. This bill has emerged from considerable consultation with industry and stakeholders. Feedback we have received to date from industry has been hugely positive, especially in recent days, with both the Marine Farming Association and the New Zealand Aquaculture Council saying they look forward to the lifting of the moratorium. This bill supports, clarifies, and defines aquaculture\u2019s place in the marine environment, and provides for the sustainable growth of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand. I am delighted to commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e27c96ca791d4a4b9cb9df3095c60d81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e27c96ca791d4a4b9cb9df3095c60d81\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E This legislation extends the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry for generations to come. National will, of course, oppose the Aquaculture Reform Bill, and it will do so principally on that basis. The legislation, without principle and without negotiation, gives M\u0101ori 20 percent of aquaculture space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d279aa20d14b4a3aba6c961427d30554\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: What did you do with the Fisheries Bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a99e133bc9884640b805c5f8e16c7786\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell the member about the Fisheries Bill, if she gives me a minute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ENot only does the Aquaculture Reform Bill give M\u0101ori 20 percent but, over the next 10 years, the Government is instructing councils to gift to M\u0101ori up to 40 percent of all aquaculture space about to be created. The important point is that when M\u0101ori submitters came before the Primary Production Committee, the whole lot of them said that the bill will not settle any grievance. Not one M\u0101ori submitter said to us that this was settlement. All of them said that there has been no negotiation, but here the Labour Government is trying to settle what it sees as a grievance simply by gifting to M\u0101ori, without discussion or negotiation. Those submitters left us in no doubt at all that the bill will provide no full and final settlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWhy give M\u0101ori 20 percent or 40 percent? That is the important question I ask the Minister. The answer the Labour members gave us at the select committee was that this bill was unfinished business associated with the 1992 deed of settlement. We took the opportunity of asking the officials to give the select committee any proof that the business was unfinished and had been deliberately left to one side during the 1992 negotiation, as the Minister has just claimed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d864ce310144564a8950b75a38e2b2a\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley\u003C/span\u003E: Was there any proof?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a759ead4193840f4890b9d6826225707\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: We asked for the proof, and it finally came back from the officials that there was no written record, at all, as to whether the business was unfinished. But help was on the way. M\u0101ori submitters told us they had the proof and would table it. We waited days and days and days for the proof.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220084cd6cca17499ab148974493e68bee\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley\u003C/span\u003E: Did it come?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a999a8fcb474028805edcf261b10b39\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: It never came\u2014from any M\u0101ori submitter. Help was finally on the way. The Hon Dover Samuels stuck his hand up and said that in 1992 he had been one of the negotiators, which was news to the select committee, and he then promised to table documentary evidence that the aquaculture industry had had the claims associated with the 1992 settlement put to one side. To date, we are still waiting for the Hon Dover Samuels to table any evidence, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI take the opportunity of reading one paragraph from the 1992 deed of settlement signed between the Crown and M\u0101ori. Paragraph 5.1 states: \u201CM\u0101ori agree that this Settlement Deed, and the settlement it evidences, shall satisfy all claims, current and future, in respect of, and shall discharge and extinguish, all commercial fishing rights and interests of M\u0101ori, whether in respect of sea, coastal or inland fisheries (including any commercial aspect of traditional fishing rights and interests), whether arising by statute, common law (including customary law and aboriginal title), the Treaty of Waitangi, or otherwise, and whether or not such rights or interests have been the subject of recommendation or adjudication by the Courts or the Waitangi Tribunal.\u201D That is absolute, clear evidence that everybody who signed that document in 1992 accepted that it was full and final. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI took the opportunity of talking to two former National Party colleagues, Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Doug Kidd. Both those Ministers, who were intimately involved in the discussion, say that there was no unfinished business associated with aquaculture. That is their clear memory of those discussions. Yet the Labour Government comes along and, without principle or any justification at all\u2014apart from trying to curry favour with M\u0101ori associated with the seabed and foreshore\u2014is gifting to M\u0101ori up to 40 percent of aquaculture. I say to the Minister that generations to come will still be debating the Treaty of Waitangi and the grievances associated with it, and this legislation does nothing to help. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI turn my comments to the bill itself. In 10 or 11 years in this House, I do not recall a bill coming before a select committee that was as incompetently prepared as this one from the new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. It was so incompetent that it simply would not work. Let us consider the first major issue the committee had to grapple with, and that was the issue of security of tenure for existing marine farmers. It was as if the Minister had never bothered to get in a boat and go and have a look at some of these things, because he would then know that in the case of some of the salmon farms, millions of dollars are invested. The bill as it originally appeared before the committee meant that come the end of farmers\u2019 permits to occupy the space, they had no rights of first refusal unless their council agreed to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWhat aquaculturalist would invest millions of dollars in an industry unless such a simple issue as security of tenure was addressed? That was the greatest issue presented to us at the select committee, and I am pleased to say that the committee members and the officials worked hard to achieve what is now in the bill as reported back today. The aquaculturist now has the right of first refusal, provided he or she has operated in a satisfactory situation, unless in the exceptional circumstance that the council needs to consider another way. The feedback I have seen from the industry is that that is a vast improvement on what was presented to the select committee. That improvement came about because of the way the committee worked. It had nothing to do with the incompetence of the Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe second point that needs to be made in this debate is the time constraint the select committee was under. We had 4 months from the time the bill was introduced in the House. Ministers have had years to prepare the legislation. The Minister\u2019s earlier response had been to impose a further moratorium, but when he finally decided to table a bill, he gave 3 or 4 weeks for submitters to prepare submissions for the committee, and then he gave something like a month for the committee to hear submissions and a month to consider the legislation. I thank the officials for their work. Those guys worked 7 days a week to help get the Minister and his hopeless, incompetent Government out of that mess. I also pay tribute to the select committee secretariat for their work. I thank Bob Bunch, Mary Hay, and Steven Mitchell for their huge commitment in working with the committee to right the mess. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe select committee achieved a large number of changes through the legislation, and I will certainly take the opportunity of speaking to those during the laborious Committee stage we will enter into shortly. But I want to say that the most telling line of submission before the select committee concerned the way it is becoming increasingly easier for New Zealand aquaculturalists to take their expertise to other countries. Countries like South America and Australia welcome the expertise of New Zealand aquaculturalists and make it easy for them to operate in their countries, whereas this Government has been putting in place, in front of the aquaculturalist, more and more bureaucracy and more and more encumbrances to developing an industry that has huge potential for the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe legislation has been hugely improved. I thank the select committee members who worked with me through that process. Some of them clearly got more involved in the process than others, but at the end of the day, despite the time constraint, the 141 submissions, the 34 hours of hearings, and the 34 hours of deliberation, the bill has been reported back in substantially better form than it was before it came before the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd0f08a52502428682e4f732af925ad1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd0f08a52502428682e4f732af925ad1\u0022\u003EJANET MACKEY (Labour\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E It is with some relief, I think we would all agree, that this bill is being reported back and is going to be debated before the Christmas break. I agree with the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee that the schedule was very tight; not so much for the members of the select committee but certainly for the officials, who were sent away to get more and more information, and for the clerk and support staff of the committee, who worked round the clock and weekends to ensure we would be able to see this bill go through the remainder of its passage through the House before Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI think the bill has certainly changed in the course of its time with the select committee, but that is the reason we have select committees. A committee is given a bill, and there is then an opportunity for the industry to comment. I thank those members of the industry who provided their time as expert advisers to the committee. This bill is testimony to the effectiveness of a good select committee process. I thank the chairperson of the select committee, because he showed a real commitment to improving the legislation and to working constructively rather than politically, to ensure that we brought back better legislation to the House\u2014legislation that certainly now has a lot of support from the industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EThere were a number of issues that the committee considered vitally important to pass, and I am sorry to hear that the National Party will not be supporting this legislation. I think its members will be in a very small minority of New Zealanders in doing so. Certainly, the industry wants to see this bill passed. Its members want to see it passed for the reason that we need to create some certainty in the industry. There was a comment about people going overseas. I was certainly impressed by what Australia is doing to encourage New Zealand aquaculturists to take their skills and their investment to Australia and to set up their businesses over there. Many of those people realise the advantage of fish farming in New Zealand, and it is important that this bill is passed so that we can create some certainty in an environment in which, as the chairman said, people are investing millions of dollars.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EThere was a real problem created by the need to provide 20 percent of the fishery for M\u0101ori, and that was that M\u0101ori would end up with small, 20-percent pieces of the coastline. That would have been neither economic nor practicable, and there would have been no guarantee that the areas they got would be any good for fish farming, anyway. So I welcome the changes that have been made in that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI acknowledge that there are, perhaps, still some concerns in the industry, and I think there are still some concerns among select committee members, over a number of issues. I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed over the private sector paying for treaty settlements. I think that that does create a precedent. However, I would probably challenge people to find any other way in which to deal with that issue. Unlike the National Party, the Government believes that it as a matter of good faith, and in the spirit of the fisheries settlement, M\u0101ori are entitled to 20 percent of that fishery. We can take that down to the letter of the law, we can ask for proof, and we can do whatever we want, but, in the spirit of that settlement, I believe that it is absolutely appropriate that M\u0101ori are ensured 20 percent of the fishery. I acknowledge those submitters who have expressed concern over the private sector effectively paying for that settlement by applying for 100 percent and receiving 80 percent of the application. However, I also say it is perhaps a moot point, given that an application is not ownership. I do not think anyone can put in an application for a fisheries permit with any certainty that that application will be granted, so we are hardly taking away from people something that they already own. But I do acknowledge the costs associated with the preparation for putting in an application.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EThe other concern that I think may require the attention of this House sometime in the future\u2014and it will be up to local government to ensure that it does not\u2014is the ability of some smaller local authorities to manage their role in the fishery. That is certainly the case with coastal plans and with some of the skills and expertise that will be required. I know that smaller councils, like my own, came to the select committee and acknowledged that it was really beyond them. They did not have a lot of intention of doing anything, actually, and that concerned me because this legislation will rely very much on the expertise and management ability of local authorities to do their job, and to do it well. I do not think we came out of the select committee process with any confidence that the smaller councils would manage that well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI welcome this bill coming back to the House. It is a year since we passed the extension to the moratorium. At that time there was a lot of political chest-beating and huffing and puffing over the Government\u2019s inability to come back with legislation to manage this very complex fishery. I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and his staff, and I congratulate the officials, who have come back to Parliament with legislation that I believe is an excellent beginning to the management of this fishery. I fully expect that in the future we may need to trim the bill or deal with certain issues that arise, but the industry certainly welcomes this bill and so does the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6d7660947354c46a74aee70f1baff44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6d7660947354c46a74aee70f1baff44\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First will support this bill, and in doing so I want to thank the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, David Carter, my fellow members of the committee\u2014although it is sometimes doubtful whether I should do that\u2014and, of course, the officials, without whom we would be completely lost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First believes that while the moratorium has been on the aquaculture industry we have been losing hard-won markets in overseas countries\u2014markets that have been lost to other countries, namely Australia, South American countries, and such like. So it is great that this bill is before us and shows a pathway ahead. I want to mention some of the issues that were somewhat contentious in the bill and give people our views on those issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EFirstly, this bill is about allocating space. It is about allocating space on the commons or in public areas. It does not concern anyone that our ACT colleagues could say there should be a lease in perpetuity, which is what they say in their minority report. The bill does not say there can be ownership by fee simple because it does not concern land; it is on the foreshore and seabed where this activity takes place. This is, in short, private gain on public space, so it needs to be cared for and needs prescriptive legislation around it of a special kind, and this legislation does that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EWhen we are talking about 20 percent of new space for M\u0101ori, it is simply misleading to talk about 40 percent of space for M\u0101ori. Whatever happens in the new space, whether 40 percent of that is allocated to M\u0101ori, at the end of the day\u2014and people should be quite clear about this\u2014M\u0101ori will receive 20 percent of space. Never mind where all these things came from\u2014the Government of the day has decided that 20 percent will be allocated to M\u0101ori. It has said that upfront, and that will happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EIt is interesting, though, to consider where that 20 percent figure came from. That figure came as a precedent from the previous National Government when it passed the Fisheries Bill. That bill, I might tell members\u2014and my colleagues will speak more about this later\u2014was passed not through a select committee but through this House in a great hurry\u2014a hurry that makes this look like a walk in the park. So let us not forget that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EIn actual fact, what will happen with this new space\u2014bearing in mind that many of the aquaculture management areas that this bill sets up have not been defined; some have, but many have not\u2014is that some of the costs of application will come off the present players in the industry, but the space will not. So it is facetious to be talking about space coming off other people. In actual fact, in most cases, extra water space will be allocated. Nobody will know whether that is the case or whether it is not, and I am sure the councils that are charged with the responsibility of administering this bill will not be saying so. But in actual everyday terms, more space will be allocated, and that is where the 20 percent for M\u0101ori will come from. So there will be minimal cost to the present players and, dare I say it, minimal cost to the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EIt is time we had a bill like this, because when a new industry comes to New Zealand\u2014an industry that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars\u2014it is something we want to encourage, but where and how it happens is very, very important. There has been significant angst and significant argument over the original setting-up of aquaculture in this country, and this bill, although not faultless, will go a very long way towards fixing all of that. Security of tenure, as I have mentioned before, was a problem. As the chairman of the select committee has said to the House, that has been largely fixed up in this bill by giving present players in the industry first right of refusal\u2014or right of first refusal, which I am told is a different thing, but I will not bother to try to work that out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c26487a37a84402f8261c2708c26aa4b\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley\u003C/span\u003E: The Green member will explain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b0a99b461e1483ba5c151560ef2b116\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. New Zealand First is in favour of this bill. We will support the amendments, and we will support the bill becoming law as quickly as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u00225beadfab3f0f4bb78bb39a309c05ad74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225beadfab3f0f4bb78bb39a309c05ad74\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I suspect that the marine farming industry will breathe something of a sigh of relief that, at long last, the industry can start to proceed. But I also suspect that when they listen to this debate over the next few hours, or however long it takes, and recognise the huge problems that they will face in the future, they will see this bill as something of a dual-edged sword. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI note that the chairman of the New Zealand Aquaculture Council, Callum McCallum, wants to say a big thankyou to the Government, its officials, and everybody involved in this legislation. I cannot help but wonder how long he will be thanking the Government for, because his press release states that he has the Minister\u2019s \u201Cdirect assurances\u201D that the complexities of this 214-page bill will be applied by the Government in a practical, supportive way that respects investment commitments to date. What on earth does that mean? It will not be the Government\u2019s role, once this bill is passed, to do anything at all; it will be up to the regional councils to decide what will happen with the aquaculture industry in the future. I have not the slightest doubt that this 214-page bill will become an albatross around the neck of the industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EIn this second reading debate I can perhaps do no worse than refer to the ACT minority report. This is the summation of the way my party feels about this bill. We recognise that this industry has the potential to be one of New Zealand\u2019s greatest export earners, given our massive coastlines and our creative, innovative people within the industry. But this Government appears to have decided to restrict, control and confine the industry, in the name of goodness knows what. Timorous attitudes will get this industry nowhere. The ACT party believes that this reform bill will hinder the development of this important industry and prevent it from achieving its fullest potential. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ESecurity of tenure\u2014Mr Woolerton has already spoken about this\u2014has to be the biggest single issue I was faced with during my time on the Primary Production Committee. Regretfully, I was not there for all the meetings, but I constantly advocated that there should be a lease in perpetuity. The reason for that is very simple. I have seen what happens to short-term leases in industries based on land, for example. If one gives a short-term lease, one will get a short-term solution, and one will get long-term problems from that form of tenure. Security of tenure is vital because this industry requires multimillions of dollars for investment both now and in the future. Nobody will invest in this industry\u2014well, nowhere near their potential\u2014with the short-term approach the Government has taken. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EA submitter from, I think, Blenheim said that five people from the industry have already gone to Australia because they will not put up with what this bill dishes out to them. They said that in Australia there are about four pages of regulations and requirements. In New Zealand, by comparison, there are about 400 pages, I suspect\u2014it is huge\u2014and the industry does not even know what the regional councils will dish up to it in the future. The industry has been given 20 years\u2019 security by this bill. The 20-year period is nothing but a blink of an eye in terms of establishing oneself, one\u2019s industry, one\u2019s offshore infrastructure, one\u2019s business associations, and one\u2019s markets overseas. Twenty years is a meaningless period of time. In fact, in many instances it takes generations to establish industries. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThat is why I and the ACT party unrepentantly advised that this industry should have a lease in perpetuity\u2014a perpetual right of renewal, subject to some predetermined environmental considerations. We do it for land. Why can we not do it for the ocean? We have to. I suspect that in the future there will be amendments that actually recognise this point, as was the case many years ago when we had short-term pastoral leases. The farmers of those days said that if they were not going to get their leases back they would become an extractive industry. They could not care less. Then it all changed, of course, and became hugely sustainable once that clause was removed\u2014once the industry had a lease in perpetuity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EMr Carter has already alluded to the issues surrounding the allocation to M\u0101ori. The 1992 Waitangi fisheries settlement was stated to be full and final. What is it about the words \u201Cfull and final\u201D that the Minister of Fisheries does not really understand? That is clear and absolute, and there has been no presentation of fact or document to prove otherwise. The select committee did ask for that information to be presented. It was not presented. What was presented, and what I received, was advice from Crown Law on this issue. Now, I thought that it would be a pretty fair way of determining the veracity or otherwise of the Minister\u2019s claim that 20 percent of the space should go to M\u0101ori under the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement. The advice we received from Crown Law consisted of three blank pages, where its opinion was withheld. Why? What possible justification can the Minister or Crown Law have for withholding that perfectly valid information? It is totally and utterly inappropriate for an office of the Government\u2014the Crown Law Office\u2014to withhold valuable information if that information would have assisted our select committee in getting this bill right. That, surely, is the purpose of the bill. It is to establish, at this early stage of the industry, the ground rules, so that the industry can progress in a sensible and reasoned fashion. But that will not happen for another very important reason, and that is because of the powers that this bill gives to the Department of Conservation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe bill essentially gives the Department of Conservation the power of veto. Why I say it is so terribly important to remove the department out of this whole process is that it has already stated that its intended policy is to ensure that 10 percent of the coastline goes into marine parks. So along comes the fishing industry, the mussel farmers, or whoever it might be, and the department will say: \u201COh, this looks like a nice spot for one of our marine reserves. Permission declined.\u201D It will not be the Ministry of Fisheries that runs this industry; it will be the Department of Conservation. Its tentacles have stretched right throughout industry in this country, and certainly throughout primary-based industry. I note John Tamihere is nodding in agreement with me, and I am delighted to see that. I am sure that next year\u2014if or when he is back\u2014he will be reining in that department. However, it is totally and utterly inappropriate to give a Government department like the Department of Conservation the power of veto. It has a power of advocacy, which is also quite wrong, and I can only lament that the future of this industry will be tied inevitably with the Department of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8b6c40eb2ca433cb14694b47ff09447\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8b6c40eb2ca433cb14694b47ff09447\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens support this bill. Until now the marine farming industry in this country has been a very successful one. Most people do not know it, but in Marlborough alone the aquaculture industry earns more for the province than the famous wine industry does. It is an industry that has been characterised by a boom-and-bust mentality in applications for water space, but also by delays in the clash between the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Act, and it has been characterised by moratoria. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThis legislation was designed to get around that. It was designed to create aquaculture management areas, where people could apply for marine space within the aquaculture management area, and they could not apply in the exclusion zones outside the aquaculture management area. It took officials something like 3 years to write the bill. As others have said, about 4 weeks were given for submissions, and then the Primary Production Committee had about a month to hear submissions and another month to consider. The timescale was not good. However, although we perhaps have not made a silk purse out of a sow\u2019s ear, I think we have done an extremely good job in changing what was unworkable legislation into something that is very workable. It is a credit to all the people who have worked so long and hard to get it to where it is today. I would like to pay particular credit to the officials\u2014a couple of whom are here today\u2014plus our select committee officials, and all the members of the select committee, led by David Carter, the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209a99f60f903480f9e2fc47d097c1f3b\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but members should not be standing up and talking in the Chamber. Please be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279682d4ef6da4be4acdfb1e2947f9d37\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET\u003C/span\u003E: I think they were standing to applaud, were they not? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI think that the main problem before this legislation came into being was the clash of cultures between the essentially community-based Resource Management Act and the essentially centrally based legislation of the Fisheries Act, and the different cultures of the groups that administered those two different Acts. This bill is trying to put the control of aquaculture into the hands of the community; in other words, through the regional councils under the auspices of the Resource Management Act. The Ministry of Fisheries will still have input at a very early stage. So rather than somebody going to the council, getting a resource consent, and then sometimes waiting for years to get a fisheries permit, it is all done in one step under this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe aquaculture management areas are designed so there are areas in our sheltered waterways that are suitable for marine farming and for which people can apply for space, and the exclusion zones are all those areas other than the aquaculture management areas, where people cannot apply for space. Having said that, it is possible for people to apply for space in the exclusion zones by initiating a plan change with the local council. That is a much higher hurdle than the resource consent as it is at the moment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EAs others have mentioned, one of the main issues of contention in the bill as it was originally tabled was security of tenure. The bill provided that when an existing marine farmer had a lease that expired, that space would go to tender. In other words, it would go to the highest bidder. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that it would not have taken very long for tendered space to always finish up in the hands of those people with the most money and, almost inevitably, they would be the big corporates. It was clearly an unworkable idea. On the one hand, marine farmers said: \u201CWhat we want most of all is security of tenure. We want the right of renewal in perpetuity.\u201D Members of the committee said: \u201CNo, this is public open space. This is commons, from which you are trying to derive private profit. It is not appropriate for you to have a permanent right of renewal. Look at what has happened with the high country leases\u2014we had to buy them back.\u201D On the other hand, there is the underlying reality that this is a biophysical process. There are physical limits to how many marine farms we can have in an area. It is not about simply allocating space; it is about asking whether marine farmers will be able to operate in that space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe compromise that we have come to, which I think is a very good compromise, is that instead of the water space being tendered, the incumbent farmer has the right to make an application for a resource consent first. In other words, that farmer\u2019s application is heard first. If that application is successful, the farmer gets a renewal of the lease for another 20 years. If the farmer\u2019s application is unsuccessful, then other things kick in, and at that point it could go to tender or other applications could be received. There are a couple of instances where the person who is an incumbent will not get the right to make the first application. One of those instances is where the council decides that the area where the farm is will no longer be considered an aquaculture management area. In other words, the council has changed the plan and the area is no longer suitable for aquaculture. At that point the incumbent farmer says: \u201CRight, that\u2019s it. I\u2019m out of here.\u201D The farmer has no recourse, and there is certainly no compensation to be paid. The other instance in which the farmer may not have the right to apply first for renewal of the consent is where he or she has not complied with the existing resource consent conditions. If the farmer has been convicted of some kind of unsatisfactory behaviour, then he or she is deemed not to be suitable in terms of their specific resource consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EWhat the bill now states is that the people not only have to comply with their resource consent, but also have to comply with the industry standards. At the moment industry standards\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c79f8e39bc584fa3b042a0c192c785c8\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: When a member is speaking at the back of the Chamber, it is really quite rude for members to interject across there. I call the member to order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fc65d0e45c94d7995162c7f802bd0e7\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET\u003C/span\u003E: I understand how the Minister gets quite excited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe incumbent farmers basically have to be good, corporate citizens. There is no formal statement that this is an industry standard, but what we are intending, and hoping I guess, from the passage of this legislation, is that the industry will get together and form its own voluntary standards, because the last thing people want is for their space, which has become a valuable commodity, to be taken from them and tendered to somebody else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe other really contentious issue, I suppose, in this legislation is the 20 percent of new marine space that will go to M\u0101ori. In essence, the Government is trying to say that 20 percent of any new space that is created in an aquaculture management area is to go to M\u0101ori, plus any existing space that was created between 1992\u2014the year of the deed of settlement for fisheries\u2014and the present, also has to go to M\u0101ori. That was intended to be on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, so that if incumbent farmers wanted to sell and move on or to retire or whatever, then the Government would move in, buy farms, and allocate that to M\u0101ori. The problem, as we foresee it, is that insufficient space will come up in a sufficiently short period of time for M\u0101ori to get 20 percent of that space. What the bill is allowing for is that M\u0101ori get 20 percent of the new space, plus it may be that there is another 20 percent, or up to 20 percent, of that new space to take account of the 20 percent from the existing space that is unable to be allocated to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EWe are also aware that if existing marine farmers want to extend their farms, then the new space they are occupying would be treated as new space and 20 percent of that would go to M\u0101ori. This sounds fine, but if there are farms dotted around the Hauraki Gulf, the Marlborough Sounds, or wherever, we will finish up with tiny little patches of marine farms that have been allocated to iwi M\u0101ori. It becomes absolutely unworkable as they are uneconomic units. What we are trying to do is to encourage councils to aggregate these small areas so that iwi M\u0101ori have their space in a particular area, in an area that is representative of the productivity of the rest of the space that has been allocated from 1992 until the present. The Greens are happy to support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022119f2c27cca0406a86672ae3e640bacf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022119f2c27cca0406a86672ae3e640bacf\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future in the second reading of this bill to state that we will be voting for it, and we would love to see it become law as soon as possible. There are very good reasons for us to do this, which I hope to elaborate on in the second reading, and if not then, certainly in the Committee stage and the third reading. The reasons we are voting for this bill are very simple. As incredible as it seems, the Primary Production Committee and officials, after we had heard from all the submitters, were able to turn the lemon that we had before us into a glass of lemonade. This bill is not 100 percent perfect, but it is certainly 90 to 95 percent operational. In a world where getting it right seems to be problematic, this is, by and large, an enabling bill to get this industry up and running again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe bill, as it came to the select committee, was a bit of a shocker, and some submitters noted that very clearly. As I listened to some of the conclusions they made, it was obvious there was really a great need for change to take place. The submitters had only 4 weeks to do what they could do, whereas the drafters of the bill, on their side, probably had something like 4 years to do this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EOut of all those submissions, the objections raised have, by and large, been answered fully in this rewritten bill\u2014those issues have been addressed, and I want to take a bit of time to just go through some of those that caused concern. For instance, submitters stated that aquaculture needed to be treated under the Resource Management Act like any other activity, such as farming, and not prohibited, and not even put on a par with, say, nuclear waste. Now that has been accepted in this rewritten bill, and I am very happy to support it because of this sort of change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe overwhelming number of submitters stated that many of the current problems in the bill were there because there had been a lack of listening by officials in the past, and therefore the moratorium was put into place to try to steady the ship. There was a plea to the officials: \u201CPlease, do not make the same mistake again.\u201D That, I believe, has been accepted in this bill, and makes us satisfied in that sense to vote for this second reading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWe heard from an industry that had pioneered over some 20 years of work. It had very little hope that certainty would be available to it through the bill as originally proposed, but now that has been provided through the rewriting of this bill. The problem with lack of continuity of tenure has been satisfied. Now every person has 20 years of tenure and the first right to continue to operate. In farming language, that really means almost as if farmers can continue for ever and a day, as long as they maintain the rules, the regulations, and the strictures that have been placed on aquaculture management areas by local councils. So as they keep farming, they can be assured they will continue in the industry. That satisfied the submitters, and we are very happy that that has been adjusted in this rewritten bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe original bill was seen to set up possible fights between other marine players. For instance, recreational and commercial fishers could have been fighting with farmers for years, as they have done in the past. In some people\u2019s minds, it was therefore improbable that the undue adverse effects test would work, especially on occasions when certain fishers would hold out on, and renege against agreeing between themselves. Now this has been put aside. The bill now has a common-sense solution. It has used the 90 percent rule that applies with sharemarket takeovers, and so this is now a very, very excellent addition to the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWe heard from submitters about the extraordinary time that had been taken in the past to get applications to the farming stage\u2014we heard from some people that it took up to 9 years\u2014and tremendous costs were incurred by farmers. We also heard in submissions that over $10 million was set aside in the Nelson-Marlborough area alone, and that that had really crippled both the attitudes of people and their desire to go into further farming. They were once bitten, twice shy, I suppose. They were suspicious that this legislation would not give them freedom. The only people they could see making good on this were the lawyers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThis bill now, as it sits in its rewritten form, I believe strips away that fear so those people can progress forward. So that is a very good addition to the whole bill. Certainty was needed, not only for the farmer, but for the lending institutions. Certainty has been put into this bill so that companies and investors can invest knowing what the rules are, as it were. Labour can be satisfied. Exports can flourish. This bill in its rewritten form provides business certainty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EMany submitters said that a public tendering process, with no compensation for the intellectual property established, could unjustly wipe the years of hard work from them, as farmers, overnight. It was their plea that the parties that had created the wealth should not have to tender for it. That injustice has now been resolved along common law principles in this particular rewritten bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003ESome submitters said they feared that bigger companies were waiting to pounce, to buy out the small ones that had no option but to sell if this legislation was passed, unchanged, through this House. They now have the power to raise their confidence, they have certainty behind them, incentives have been placed on local councils through this legislation to provide the aquaculture management areas, and now their fears in that regard have been resolved. Private aquaculture management areas can now be established. The industry actually asked for that, in submissions, and has been heard in that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EUnited Future looks forward to this bill becoming law to help business in New Zealand. Our business friendliness is in sharp contrast to that which we have just heard from both the National and ACT parties today. Honestly, how can those parties look aquaculture farmers in the eye and ask for their votes? Speakers from those parties in this House have put farmers down by being more ideological than in line with what the legislation actually offers, which is now a fantastic business opportunity awaiting everybody. I was amused today with Dr Brash\u2019s mathematics in his press release. If that is the way a Governor of the Reserve Bank does his sums, then that would signal a rapid change of governors, but I will deal more with that in the Committee stage, as time is not with me at this point. I add and reiterate that United Future will be pleased to see this legislation move forward and become law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0fd349bc05f4025a5304517b975f12c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0fd349bc05f4025a5304517b975f12c\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to commend the Aquaculture Reform Bill and its second reading to the House. In doing so I shall map out firstly the way in which this Government approaches many macroeconomic issues. As we have demonstrated, whether it is in the telecommunications industry or with regard to roads, Tranz Rail, air transport, or the reformulation of our Stock Exchange, we are a very business-friendly Government that is very supportive of Kiwi endeavour. This legislation with regard to aquaculture management areas is merely another litmus test that this Government will pass. I am grateful that we have received the support of New Zealand First, of the Greens, and of United Future on this wonderful legislation. It is about unleashing Kiwi potential in a new and dynamic way. No one has written the best manual on that, but this is one of the best possible attempts to do so in legislation in a long time, and I am grateful to the Opposition parties that are supporting the Government. The bill entertains for the very first time spatial rights in the seabed and foreshore areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249fc6b9b815d42d9a75ba5ba9d0ec771\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Not the first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a2ecd8b672445ad901f3f7101505262\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it does, to the extent that all communities, whether they are local communities acting through local authorities under the Resource Management Act, or whether they are M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, or from Timbuctoo, all have, quite clearly, been given a range of security in their opportunity to get into, and finance, the business of aquaculture. They have been given certainty, and as usual, they have been given closure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI am interested in, and somewhat intrigued by, some of the comments from National Party speakers. What I am intrigued about is that they practice one of the worst forms of selective amnesia this Parliament has ever seen. What is that selective amnesia? They have forgotten that one Douglas Montrose Graham cut the \u201CTreaty of Wellington\u201D in 1992. He had no process going through any select committee phase, and no robust consultation process\u2014nothing. He dropped the bill into this House, and just rammed it through. At the end of the day that process might well have been fraught, but members of the Opposition continue to practise that selective amnesia. They cannot remember Jim Bolger or Douglas Montrose Graham setting in place the legal and statutory framework that we are obliged to follow. In the event that we did not follow due legal process in terms of our constitution, and in the event that we practised amnesia to the extent that the National Opposition members do, surely one would have to go gaga and take a one-way ticket to Kurdistan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI tell David Carter, and his erstwhile colleague from Whangarei that no one can remember the name of, that when they get up on their feet to talk about the 20, 40 or 60 percent of the quota for M\u0101ori, we should explore that for one little moment. Douglas Montrose Graham cut a deal. Right now proceedings in the Court of Appeal in New Zealand have been adjourned sine die, because Douglas Montrose Graham and James Bolger were directed to negotiate a settlement with M\u0101ori. That is our court speaking. Not only did our court speak but Parliament spoke. The previous National Government drove legislation through that stated it did not know what would come into the quota management system, but whatever did, M\u0101ori were to get 20 percent of it. Giving M\u0101ori 20 percent then freed up the whole of the quota management system. It was a world first, and that was great. Today we hear from National and ACT party members that they want to recant that. They want to recant all the things their leadership did in those days, in terms of the 20 percent that was to go to M\u0101ori. They do not want that. They do not accept that this is unfinished business, and that this legislation does exactly what Douglas Montrose Graham and the Hon Jim Bolger portended. The framework is in place, this is unfinished business, and this Government cannot change an agreement that was executed between M\u0101ori and the Crown and enacted in legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI might say that the Hon David Carter voted for 20 percent. He did not know what it meant, but he said that 20 percent, or whatever the amount was, would go to M\u0101ori. That is exactly what is happening right now. The member for Whangarei, whom no one can remember\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dc6f7f13e7a435a836c5de480383d4a\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Plonker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225875861cf1a04f13b5f1bc0c73ede9a4\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: Whatever. He will get up very shortly and prattle off that M\u0101ori will be getting 40, 50, or 60 percent. M\u0101ori, as usual, will get 20 percent, because that was the deal that was struck by the previous National Government and it is one that we will continue to accede to. We will not overturn an agreement between M\u0101ori and the Crown that was executed as a deed of settlement and brought into this Parliament. There is a comment on and a description for that. I am not allowed to use it for the National Party, of course. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI conclude by commending the Minister of Fisheries for the fine effort he has made in bringing this legislation to the House. But because I am a good Labour MP and we are coming toward the end of the year, the Christmas season and the like, I say it is always good to remember the workers. Whether they are from the Primary Production Committee or the Ministry of Fisheries, or whether they are our officials, our messengers, or our security staff in this building, we honour and acknowledge them, and pay them tribute for bringing forward a wonderful piece of work. I regret the mean-spirited nature of the Tories over there on the Opposition benches, unably supported by the ACT party. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002254891380917e4282953c1ca8d3c84feb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254891380917e4282953c1ca8d3c84feb\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I say to the House that it should not be deceived by members on the Labour benches. This 20 percent allocation of aquaculture space to M\u0101ori has always been a quid pro quo for the seabed and foreshore deal. When the deal blew up in Labour\u2019s face, Labour figured that it could throw to M\u0101ori 20 percent of the aquaculture space and M\u0101ori would be satisfied with that. How patronising and how condescending can one get! That is why National will oppose this bill. Labour figured that it would do a dirty deal, but the marine farmers who are out there working today, M\u0101ori and others alike, will pay the price for that. The moratorium will be lifted once the bill is passed, and it is about time for that to be done. The industry has been hamstrung for too long, with moratorium after moratorium being used as a solution rather than a tool. Marine farmers from across this country have been invited to Australia and to South America to set up camp there, and some have. Fortunately, others have stayed here, in the hope that finally a bill would be brought to the House that would solve the majority of their problems. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI also acknowledge the work of the Primary Production Committee. Through the select committee process we changed what had been a dog of a bill into a much-improved bill. We have changed significant aspects of the bill, but National still opposes it on a number of fronts. Firstly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there is the issue of horse-trading with M\u0101ori. Labour thought that if it chucked 20 percent of marine space to M\u0101ori they would go away feeling very satisfied indeed, and would not kick up a fuss over the seabed and foreshore issue. That is patronising and condescending. Now, we discover that it could be up to 40 percent of new marine-farming space, because the promise of 20 percent of aquaculture space to M\u0101ori may never be fulfilled. Marine farmers may not give up their current space, and therefore 20 percent may not become available for M\u0101ori. So the top-up has to come from new space\u2014anything up to 40 percent of it. Interestingly, most M\u0101ori submitters did not acknowledge this bill as a settlement. There are several reasons for that. Firstly, there was no negotiation with M\u0101ori over 20 percent of the aquaculture space. Secondly, there is no deed of settlement over the aquaculture space to point to, unlike the fisheries settlement of 1992 where there was a deed. Therefore, many M\u0101ori submitters are already dissatisfied, because of that lack of a negotiated deed of settlement. They are concerned they will receive space they would not have chosen for themselves: patches of random space, uneconomic space, and small space. That sets the scene for another revisiting of aquaculture-space settlements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI direct the House\u2019s attention to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which is the last bill on today\u2019s Order Paper. Under clauses 118 and 119 of that bill Ng\u0101ti Awa is to receive 5 percent of the aquaculture space through preferential tendering, and that is over and above the 20 percent figure. Ng\u0101ti Awa has its own separate little settlement. That bill is on the Order Paper in Parliament right now. So we have the Aquaculture Reform Bill giving M\u0101ori 20 percent of the aquaculture space and the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill giving Ng\u0101ti Awa another 5 percent. That is without mentioning Ng\u0101 Rauru K\u012Btahi and Ng\u0101ti Ruanui, which get aquaculture space in their own settlement bills, Ng\u0101ti Tama, which gets 10 percent of the aquaculture space in its own settlement bill, and Ng\u0101i Tahu, which in 1998 received 10 percent of the aquaculture space in its settlement bill. Therein lies the problem. The National Party does not see a solution in this bill whereby we will put an end to treaty claims in aquaculture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe also have unanswered questions as to how the interests of aquaculture will be balanced with commercial fishing interests. Certainly, National supports greater interaction between the two sectors. There has to be a timely, fully transparent, and cost-effective process to follow\u2014namely, commercial fishers talking to marine farmers and marine farmers talking to commercial fishers about their aspirations in a particular area, reaching a transparent and cost-effective agreement, and then moving forward. National is unsure how regional councils will be able to quantify or qualify aquaculture\u2019s effect on fishing\u2014effects such as those on spawning and stock development. We do not know how they are going to do it. We hope regional councils can do that, because we want aquaculture to move ahead. In reality, regional councils will have to employ very smart scientists and researchers in order to ensure they have the best advice on how to address that issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EOur third major concern is the right of first refusal for an incumbent marine farmer. National members on the select committee fought hard, and it was a big win for us, to get the gains we achieved. But we are still quite concerned that incumbent marine farmers will get priority over newcomers, due to their pre-existing investment. Contrary to David Benson-Pope\u2019s statements made in the media, commercial aquaculturists have never asked for space in perpetuity\u2014not ever. They have never asked for a right of renewal; they have never felt that public space should be in their hands forever. They have only ever asked for the right of first refusal\u2014that they have first dibs at renewal if they have been good tenants. Yet in order to gain renewal they will have to follow industry-good practice, and no one has defined that. It will change with changes in technology. Marine farmers now discover that regional councils may tender out occupied space, if they feel it is necessary. We are not quite sure what the test will be, in terms of being \u201Cnecessary\u201D. We certainly have reservations about whether those requirements and tests are sufficiently robust to provide the certainty that incumbents need for their investment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIn the Committee stage I will be submitting various amendments to this bill. They will also deal with the ability of the Department of Conservation to intervene in the whole process and issue a veto as an objector under the Resource Management Act\u2014the Minister of Conservation being able to veto the process. We need changes to this legislation in order to provide certainty for this fledgling industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7d3681b824848b1ab1d87bf4b082ef0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7d3681b824848b1ab1d87bf4b082ef0\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E As a member of the Primary Production Committee, I rise to support this bill. As I kick off my brief call, it is fair to say that this bill came to the select committee with a high degree of contention and with some major issues. But the committee\u2014apart from the member who preceded me\u2014in the spirit and nature of its work, got through those matters, and I think we have brought a substantial, quality bill back to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI want to correct a couple things put forward by Mr Heatley, the well-known, so-called member from Whangarei. The first\u2014and he is right in this\u2014is that one of the major issues in the bill was the perceived lack of security of tenure by industry players. Contrary to Mr Heatley\u2019s submission to the House, that has been fixed, and he knows it. Existing marine farmers, unless the aquaculture management area is changed, get the first right to apply, if they have been good citizens and have not breached their consents. Effectively, unless the plan is changed, they get the first option. Of course, Mr Heatley conveniently forgot to make that point. What we heard from the National Party was the usual stir-up on race. Somebody should tell Mr Heatley and Mr Carter that Don Brash tried that in \u014Crewa, and it worked for 5 minutes. Now the tables have turned, and the people have told Don Brash to wake up. Mr Heatley said that he fought hard in the select committee. Well, if he fought hard in the committee, then he fought harder than Don Brash did over the issue of the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe committee visited a number of marine farmers in Clevedon, Auckland, and Blenheim, including people like Callum McCallum who contribute a huge amount through both their fish-processing factories and their aquaculture farms. They are battling Kiwis\u2014great business people\u2014who, as Mr Ewen-Street said, contribute much to the economy. It would be fair to say that in Blenheim, when the Minister was down there recently and met with aquaculture people subsequent to this bill coming back from the select committee, peace had broken out in respect of this bill. I think that, in general, most aquaculture farmers are pleased with the content of the bill, especially in relation to the security-of-tenure issue, which is most important to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI also join in congratulating the officials, the staff, and the clerks who worked tirelessly on this bill. We had an interesting hearings process. A number of our members developed some new skills towards the waterfront in Auckland, especially Mr Woolerton. I am sure he knows what I mean. But the process was a very good one. It was open, and, in the spirit and tradition of the Primary Production Committee, in a non-partisan way we have brought a solid bill back to the House. I support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00222e48cc25943844ea81557c37acf4536c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e48cc25943844ea81557c37acf4536c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E After hearing that contribution from Clayton Cosgrove, I now know why Kate Wilkinson will be the next member of Parliament for Waimakariri. At heart, this bill is against everything that Trevor Mallard, the so-called Coordinating Minister, Race Relations, promised. Supposedly, at the beginning of the year this Government was going to eliminate all race-based politics. That is what we were told, but this bill is proof that Labour is more interested in buying votes than in being fair to all New Zealanders. This bill is all about two very different standards of citizenship. With this bill, a public resource worth hundreds of millions of dollars is being allocated to a group of people, based on race. The National Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3279eababaa4def8e4224db7ac7f0ca\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: Based on rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d176abedb5b401e8bd162fb38f1ab89\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I suppose it is the same sorts of rights Mr Tamihere thought he had to the $200,000 golden handshake that he promised he would not take; the same sorts of rights he believed he had to a car paid for by the Wairapeira Trust, when he already had a car provided by\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222847b22cc86b4a858774fa0df292ded5\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I refer members on my right to Speaker\u2019s ruling 56/1(1), which states that interjections are to be rare and reasonable. They should not be a running commentary. If members want to make a speech, they can take the next call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237df75389ceb4ef5b3cbe0434a522e73\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: This bill reinforces everything that New Zealanders dislike about this Labour Government. It is saying that if people are non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fa06d9872714df2b70e0ab237089521\u0022\u003EMark Peck\u003C/span\u003E: National down!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d1d1a2e5d3a4fa59466066d6bb13d53\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: One of the reasons Mr Peck has decided to throw away his seat in Invercargill is that he knows that the people there do not want to live in a country where the opportunities to create wealth are based on race, not fairness. Trevor Mallard promised there would be complete race neutrality in the policies of this Labour Government. There is anything but that in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us reflect back on the history of the fisheries settlement in 1992, the provisions of which were absolutely comprehensive. The settlement was to satisfy all claims, current and future, in respect of all commercial-fishing rights. This deed of settlement defines commercial-fishing rights as those that require a fishing permit under the Fisheries Act. If we look up what the Fisheries Act requires in terms of aquaculture, we note that to have an aquaculture farm a person requires a fishing permit. There can be no question at all that the 1992 settlement involved aquaculture, yet no member of the Government has been able to explain why the gravy train has been reopened. Under Labour, full and final settlements do not mean full and final. Labour is happy to reopen the chequebook if it suits its political agenda.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd543d4c889e43b0bfef75b6926af15d\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What did the judge say about this man?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229de279f89b8944d89cf11811d9a8ddc2\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Members opposite want to get into all sorts of irrelevancies, because they cannot defend what they are doing in this regard. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since I have been on my feet I have faced a continuous barrage of interjections. I have heard three in the last minute in respect of what members opposite claim was a conviction. That is factually incorrect, and it has been clarified by you on many occasions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccc46a8f2fea403195ba5b4ac9462543\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The matter would not have been in Hansard in that regard, and I was trying to help the member out. Now that he has drawn attention to the matter, there will be no further interjections on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022420d139694a8435fb88ec4d9b494fe92\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: If we go back to the 1992 settlement, we will see, as I have carefully explained, that it did include aquaculture, because it was full and final settlement of all matters, yet members opposite have reopened the chequebook. Let us ask the question why they have done that. Well, it is actually very simple. When the foreshore and seabed issue arose, the Government got itself into difficulty. It lost one of its M\u0101ori MPs, then searched out as to how it could buy back some support. So in April the Government suddenly got extremely generous about throwing away rights that should have been shared by all New Zealanders, and providing them exclusively for M\u0101ori. I say again that that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy because all New Zealanders should have an equal right to apply for and develop marine farms in this country. To have a race-based system under this Labour Government, whereby people of one ethnicity have different rights, is quite simply wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also want to reflect on another botched process by the Minister, Mr David Benson-Pope. Only last week we were in urgency dealing with legislation that was being rushed through under that Minister, and here we are back in the House again, once more in urgency, dealing with matters promoted by that same Minister. The tragedy is that the aquaculture industry was put under a moratorium by this Government a long 4 years ago. During the 1990s, under National\u2019s careful stewardship, we saw\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022199b17a75dfa44e5af901d7e29aab5fb\u0022\u003EGovernment Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205ba3359e7104a9181077617d5fc6721\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will put my record on it. I ask members: do you know how much the aquaculture industry expanded\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296f44f2fd82743c8ad398e3d57250078\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Do not bring me into the debate, please. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae67719d316e42308c24bcc15bd0b24a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: You are so finicky with me, Mr Speaker, and so inadequate with every\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b49748220e442e9a11ea44c887a68cb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will now resume his seat. His speech is terminated. I am not having that sort of rudeness. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022493ed25cf0c54484b63b7b724fcf7e64\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what I am talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe4326be1e784255ade2970ec5159790\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will now leave the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf363143ddc24ff8a57633166dca2d4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf363143ddc24ff8a57633166dca2d4f\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E During the course of that debate Jen McCutcheon knocked on another 200 doors. She is looking extraordinarily well placed to be the next member for Nelson. I must say that the House is looking forward to a real member of Parliament for Nelson, particularly one who will be a member of the Government. [Interruption] I can tell members that Wayne Harpur will fly in this place. He has my support as the new, vibrant member for Invercargill. I support the second reading of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003EAmendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f4d25e9960884da495429688ff4e4340\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228666e887277e4fb1a3bd39f9efc8b08d\u0022\u003EInstructions to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf21e21b36ff4e609568e7bd29ddeeec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf21e21b36ff4e609568e7bd29ddeeec\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Aquaculture Reform Bill that it take the bill part by part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ff12b621f24d475c905ba23bafcadd90\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee1032ffd096485ea2de3ddc0574bb98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee1032ffd096485ea2de3ddc0574bb98\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Aquaculture Reform Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 322.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dd58796037534bcbb2ba81934148a19d\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222757dbe6e2aa4dd5b01b2c53e4676629\u0022\u003EPart 1  Resource Management Act 1991\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002237642ac1229547abb40bd4f8f9c87f3f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237642ac1229547abb40bd4f8f9c87f3f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to raise a number of points on Part 1. Now that the purpose of the bill has been split according to the subdivision of the legislation, as we go to its final stages in the next few days under urgency, I start by asking some questions of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope. I want some satisfaction as to the justification for clause 4A(b), which is the clause that empowers the Minister of Conservation to direct regional councils in relation to the allocation of space in the coastal marine area. The reason I am concerned is that this legislation starts a process that sets a precedent by which the responsibility for aquaculture is, significantly, being passed to regional councils. I have no problem with that. They are the local authorities that have the ability to determine where best to create aquaculture management areas, but, having passed the authority to regional councils, the next thing this Government did was to straightaway insert a clause that gives the Minister of Conservation the right to veto. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister that that fundamentally destroys the philosophy of the legislation. We are trying to take an industry with huge potential out of the clutches of a moratorium that was imposed, then extended, because the Government was bereft of ideas for giving the industry a chance to develop. Then we came up with legislation that gave the industry a significant chance to get back on the case and develop and promote before too many of our best brains in aquaculture fled across the Tasman or to South America\u2014to Chile, and countries like that\u2014as we heard via the submissions process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EHowever, as we do that, the first thing this Government does is to say that while it is giving the opportunity to regional councils, it will rein them in with another check that means that at any time it can, via the Minister of Conservation, stop the process. One might not be too worried about that, given some of the Ministers of Conservation we have had in the past, but if we go to an MMP election and, God help us, the Greens are in a position of deciding who the Minister of Conservation is to be, could the industry live with Nandor Tanczos being the Minister of Conservation and having the right to veto every application for aquaculture? That is the sort of nonsense that could develop out of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EOur fisheries spokesperson, Phil Heatley, will be moving an amendment to delete clause 4A(b). I see no justification at all for the Minister of Conservation having those veto powers. This legislation gives every opportunity for fisheries to be involved, as they should be. It gives every opportunity for the Minister of Conservation to be involved via the Resource Management Act process, and I have no problem with that. But, having gone through the community Resource Management Act process, to give the Minister of Conservation yet another opportunity gives the industry no satisfaction at all that we are passing legislation today that will give it the opportunity to progress. That is the first point I want the Minister to comment on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EFor my second point I want flick to Subpart 2, \u201CPrivately initiated plan changes\u201D, in Part 7A inserted by clause 21. I ask the Minister to explain and to assure the Committee that the promotion of significant changes in that area by the select committee will enhance the system of giving the operators currently in the industry, who want to move relatively minor private plan changes to expand their operations, a fair opportunity to do so under this legislation. Those are the questions I want answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022e98aebbb3d074fa89db9e52070696cfc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e98aebbb3d074fa89db9e52070696cfc\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I too would like to draw to the Committee\u2019s attention the influence that the Department of Conservation will have over this aquaculture industry. When I look at the bill, I see that it is titled the Aquaculture Reform Bill, but under the Department of Conservation it will become the \u201CAquaculture Restriction Bill\u201D. It is not a bill designed to ensure that aquaculture gets its fair share; it is designed to ensure that the Department of Conservation gets what it wants, then everybody else can have what is left over. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI am sure the Committee can see from the clauses in Part 1 that the hands of Kevin Smith from the Minister of Conservation\u2019s office are all over the bill. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has got its way again under this Minister\u2019s advocacy. He has buckled to the Minister of Conservation and to the determination\u2014driven, I guess, by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society\u2014to ensure that 10 percent of our coastal space goes to reservations and marine reserves. That is the expressed policy of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. That is what Kevin Smith wants, and under Chris Carter\u2019s stewardship, what Kevin Smith wants, Kevin Smith gets. That is why this bill is so bad. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI have no problem with reserves\u2014none at all. The ACT party has no problem with reserves; indeed, they are needed. We probably need quite a number of small reserves throughout this country. ACT is not opposed to conservation, but if the Department of Conservation and the Minister had an ounce of integrity, the Minister would have said to the Minister of Fisheries that the department had identified certain areas as being valuable and asked him please to ensure that they were well identified and that the public had a chance to comment on them before the bill went through. That would have been a fair and reasonable process. As it is, we now have a situation whereby every time new applicants want to put an application in and go marine farming, they will have to deal with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society first. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThey will not deal with the Ministry of Fisheries or the regional councils in the first instance; they will have to consult with the Department of Conservation and give whatever concessions it wants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe real issue for me, certainly, is the advocacy role that the Department of Conservation has in this area. In some respects I cannot blame it, because statute requires it to advocate for conservation. But it is surely the duty of the members of this Parliament to advocate for the industry\u2014for the exporters who give us a living in this country. It is not the Department of Conservation or any other department that ensures the health and wealth of this country; it is the people who get out there and do the work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThis bill, through the Department of Conservation, will make life for the producers of this country\u2014the marine farmers\u2014even more difficult. There are bureaucratic structures and a time lapse. I see in the bill that applicants have to give the Department of Conservation 4 months\u2019 notice. Every application will, time and time again, drag out to the 4-month period. Any applicants in the aquaculture industry overseas would have their ropes in the ground and their buoys locked up, or whatever they do. The industry would be up and running within 4 months. As it is in New Zealand, the application will go in and nothing will happen for 4 months until the Department of Conservation has had a look around to see whether the seabed is suitable for its needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d95d4730e2824a40a3e41383463650e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d95d4730e2824a40a3e41383463650e0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on the fact that the Minister in the chair has now changed from the Hon David Benson-Pope to the Hon Harry Duynhoven. We are seeking answers to questions. Mr Duynhoven sat with us on the Primary Production Committee. Is it appropriate for him, as a select committee member, now to sit in the Minister\u2019s chair in the Committee stage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c18368ae408416a99b9b7f15574c434\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for that. That is a decision for the Hon Harry Duynhoven to make. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u00226ff47a0aa2364eb8b46b97329becc963\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ff47a0aa2364eb8b46b97329becc963\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I will put six amendments to the Committee this afternoon on Part 1 that will deal with three broad areas. One area is to do with the degree of interference that the Minister of Conservation can have in the establishment of marine-farming space. The second major area is around the right of first refusal process, which we can see unwinding due to unnecessary hoops that incumbent marine farmers will have to jump through. The third general area is to do with the ability of the Minister to revisit treaty settlements. I will put those amendments to members, and I will take three calls to talk about them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe first amendment is to new section 165I(1)(b)(i), inserted by clause 21, to omit the word \u201Cnecessary\u201D and substitute the word \u201Cessential\u201D. Under this proposed legislation, incumbent marine farmers can get a right of first refusal to continue marine farming in a space if they have been good tenants. But, if they have been there for 20 years, they are an incumbent, they have spent a fortune on establishing their business on and off the water, they have employed staff and have 10 or 20 working for them, they have done a good job in the industry, they have been good environmentally, and they have undertaken good industry practice, it is absurd that after 20 years they would have to move out of that space and that someone else\u2014another marine farmer\u2014could come and farm in that space in their place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhy would one legislate for that? That is absolutely absurd. An incumbent should have a right of first refusal to continue in that space. That is all to do with investment. Why would marine farmers continue to invest if they knew that they would be shifted out after 20 years and that some competitor\u2014a fly-by-nighter\u2014would take their space? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo National is saying that right of first refusal is a good idea. But we know that under this bill\u2014it states so in clause 165I\u2014regional councils can, if \u201Cnecessary in the circumstances of the region\u201D, not allow an incumbent marine farmer to stay there, and allow a competitor to come in and take the farmer\u2019s space, investment, staff, and everything. National is saying that the word \u201Cnecessary\u201D is not a high enough test. If regional councils think they can do that just if it is \u201Cnecessary\u201D, then that word is far too broad to allow them to do that. National will substitute the word \u201Cessential\u201D. If regional councils see something as essential for the benefit of the region or for its circumstances, then they can re-tender the space\u2014not if they see it as necessary, but as essential. That raises the bar. Regional councils will have to give a very good reason indeed before they can kick out an incumbent and bring a fly-by-nighter into that space. I will move that amendment, and I trust that members will vote for it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe second amendment, also regarding incumbency, is to remove altogether clause 165ZF(1)(c) inserted by clause 21, which requires marine farmers to marine farm in an area under industry good practice. That sounds fine on the surface. I am sure people listening in would think that it seems fair that marine farmers should undergo industry good practice. The problem with it is that no one has defined what \u201Cindustry good practice\u201D is. It is vague and subjective. Not only that, but the technology in marine farming is moving so swiftly, with such investment in technology, that \u201Cgood practice\u201D will change over time. So saying to regional councils that they can decline to renew a consent because a marine farmer is not following industry good practice is, as I said, too vague, too subjective, and too subject to shifts in technology. If industry good practice were defined, that would be fair enough, but, in our view, we should omit that clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EClause 165ZF provides that if a marine farmer is not a good tenant, he or she should not get a renewal, and lays out what criteria the Minister or the regional council will look at in regard to breaches that have occurred while the tenant has been marine farming for a period of 20-odd years. The council will look at: \u201C(a) the number of any breaches that have occurred; and (b) the seriousness of the breach; and (c) how recently the breach occurred; and (d) the subsequent behaviour of the applicant after enforcement action.\u201D That clause should be omitted, not because we celebrate breaches to a consent, or bad behaviour by marine farmers\u2014in particular, environmentally\u2014but if a marine farmer is farming in a space, and does not uphold the terms of his or her consent, so that there is a breach and environmental damage, then the farmer should be nailed at the time. If it is as serious and as continuous as that, it has such an effect on the neighbours\u2014whether they are recreational fishers, boaties, other marine farmers, or commercial fishers\u2014the farmer should be nailed and pulled up on it at the time. Councils should not wait until consents have run out and then say to farmers that they will not renew them because of something that happened back in the 1970s. Those farmers should have been nailed at the time. So we will move an amendment providing that that clause be omitted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo those are the amendments I have spoken to. They are all about certainty for the industry. We say that regional councils need to have right of first refusal in their minds, and there can be no right of first refusal for a marine farmer only if it is not just \u201Cnecessary\u201D but \u201Cessential\u201D for the region for that to be the case; that \u201Cindustry good practice\u201D is far too vague and subjective, will not keep up with technology, and should not be a barrier to the right of first refusal; and that if a marine farmer is under constant, serious breach of his or her consent, he or she should be nailed at the time, rather than there being something that comes up years and years later when a renewal is sought. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThere might even be a situation where a marine farmer who had been warned because of a breach of his or her consent, had no idea that the regional council viewed it so seriously until that farmer came to a renewal process and was told that he or she would not even be allowed to continue, even though he or she had invested millions. If the farmer had been told at the time when the breach occurred that it was so serious that the council was thinking of taking away the right to marine farm, that would be better. The farmer could clean up his or her act, it would be better for the environment, it would be better for the neighbours, and it would be better for the marine farmer and his or her staff. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EBut to suggest that years and years later, a regional council will haul up a history that it never policed at the time, and suddenly say to a marine farmer that his or her investment ends there and it cannot continue, is absurd. People wanting to follow good environmental practice would always pull up a breach at the time and deal with it. Marine farmers would be given the opportunity to clean up their acts, so to speak. They would not be pursued after that time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef10c0e4f4234f0dbb420ce0dda3cb5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef10c0e4f4234f0dbb420ce0dda3cb5e\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased to follow Mr Heatley, because he and I come from a district where marine farming is important and significant. This year there are 149 marine consents of various types in Northland. Ninety Mile Beach is the most significant source of mussel spat in New Zealand. Recently a consent was given for a spat farm in Wh\u0101ng\u0101p\u0113. Last of all, in the identification of potential sites of great influence for this country, Marlborough and Thames-Coromandel were just ahead of Northland. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to speak on Part 1 on behalf of New Zealand First. We have waited impatiently for many, many months and years to get to this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI assure the Committee that the issues raised by Mr Heatley have been in the minds of regional councils such as Northland\u2019s for many, many months. There is nothing in the criteria and the steps set out in clause 4A, \u201CPurpose\u201D, that I find irregular or unusual. When reading paragraph (b), which states: \u201Cto empower the Minister of Conservation to direct regional councils\u201D, one is aware of the fact that the Minister of Conservation has such powers now. That Minister has such powers under the Resource Management Act in relation to marine activity, which this matter is part of, and, therefore, it does not seem unusual that the Minister of Conservation should be part of this process\u2014he or she hitherto always has been. As those of us looking at the Marine Reserves Bill know, there is dual ministerial duty over marine reserves at present, by both the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI see nothing here that we could not proceed with now in regard to my region. The criteria for councils to follow for defined coastal plans, in terms of the effects on coastal space, and so on, which are outlined in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) of clause 4A, are normal practice in regard to plans. Surely we are aware of the fact that if there are to be changes, there is an orderly process and procedure for doing just that. Other parts of the bill set out how that should be done. There are certain criteria for publicly notified plans, to ensure that they are all identified, that the public are made aware of them, and that they are part of public consultation. If there is to be a private plan procedure, then, again, there will be public notification, and all the issues set out in clause 4A will be carefully defined in that plan. So I see nothing irregular or unusual there at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EBut I wish the Minister in charge of the bill, David Benson-Pope, was in the chair, because there are problems in regard to Ministry of Fisheries\u2019 farms and sites up to this point, as many of them have not been under careful monitoring or care. When we went through Northland looking at the proposed marine areas, we saw some disgusting evidence in Kerikeri and other places of abandoned or would-be abandoned sites of a historic nature that were all under the Ministry of Fisheries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EOne of the issues that concerns many councils is who will be responsible for that clean-up. Did the Government\u2019s Ministry of Fisheries, when it gave out those allocations, take care to monitor and to provide for the very issues that Mr Heatley raised? In other words, was there, over the years, such a lack of care and attention that abatement notices should have been placed upon those sites or licences\u2014abandoned or not\u2014but, instead, nothing was done? It is of grave concern that although any council will be able to work through the defined plans outlined here, at the end of that exercise we still will find that although recently awarded council sites\u2014in Northland there have been 35 since 1992\u2014have been monitored and closely analysed, many earlier sites were not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI am not blaming any Government ministry or department; I am merely saying that there is a real situation out there now of sites that were poorly looked after and that could be very easily identified, but that could be part of productive industry in the future. They would be subject to planning, but before that could be implemented, there would need to be a dramatic change to, and clean-up of, those sites.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe second issue that I want very quickly to look at, and that I will come back to in some detail, is that we heard some discussion earlier with regard to clause 21 and its effect on M\u0101ori and treaty issues\u2014so-called. I certainly want to take a further call to develop that at some length. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u00228a30a9422fc54f8f8df7565db52189de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a30a9422fc54f8f8df7565db52189de\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to start by making a small correction to what my colleague Phil Heatley said. He described incumbent farmers as having a right of first refusal to occupy the space again once their leases had run out. That is not strictly true. What they do have is the right to apply for a consent to the space they presently occupy. A right of first refusal, in effect, means a right of occupation in perpetuity, and I do not think we want to give people the impression that that is what those farmers have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThis bill is really about aquaculture management areas and how they are established. It was the intention of the ministry, as I understand it, to flag to regional councils some years ago that aquaculture management areas would have to be established in their areas. So those councils that had aquaculture management areas or big marine-farming areas, like Marlborough, Waikato, and Northland, have actually done quite a bit of work in establishing aquaculture management areas. I believe that they will simply take their existing farms and deem them to be aquaculture management areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThere was some concern that smaller councils, or councils that had no real aquaculture activity, had not been doing their job properly and had not been creating aquaculture management areas, so it was interesting to hear from the smaller councils. I particularly remember that the Gisborne District Council, I think it was, said that it was the guardian of its ratepayers\u2019 money, that it had had no applications from anybody to do aquaculture in its area, and that it felt it would be simply wasteful for it to use ratepayers\u2019 money to create an aquaculture management area that maybe nobody would use, so it would leave it to the private plan change to cater for anybody who wanted to create an aquaculture management area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EOnce those areas have been established, if somebody wants to create a new aquaculture management area there are several routes that can be taken. The main one is a private plan change. An individual farmer or a number of farmers can band together and say they want to expand out of the aquaculture management area into another area. Normally that is an excluded zone, so changing the plan is actually a much higher hurdle to leap over than gaining the original resource consent, which process led to the boom-and-bust sort of scenario we have had under the present regime. We in the select committee were concerned that if those people were successful in creating a new plan change, and had gone to the effort of doing that, the council would then tender the space, which is what the original legislation said, and those people\u2019s efforts would amount to nothing if someone else came along with deeper pockets. So we finally resolved that people instituting a private plan change will get 80 percent of the area they have applied for and been granted\u2014the other 20 percent, obviously, will go to M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThere was another little wrinkle in that scenario, though: if the council initiated a plan change, all the water space with the exception of the allocation to M\u0101ori would be tendered. There was a possibility that people would apply to have a private plan change, that it would then be taken over by the council, and that the council, in effect, would make it a council-initiated plan change. We were concerned that people who applied for the private plan change would, again, be left empty-handed, so there is a statement in the legislation that private initiators will get 80 percent of the space they apply and get approval for\u2014though that does not take away the ability of the council to have more space than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EIn terms of incumbents, present farms are deemed to be aquaculture management areas and they will get resource consents or permits for 20 years. At the expiry of that time the leases expire, and the farmers have the opportunity to reapply for coastal occupation permits. They will have to fulfil a couple of obligations. First of all, the council must not be going to change the plan and stop that area from being an aquaculture area in the future. Second, and probably more important, is the fact that we are requiring or encouraging marine farmers to play fair\u2014to do the right thing by both their community and the environment\u2014so that they do fulfil the terms of their resource consents. There have to be fairly severe breaches of the resource consents, as Mr Heatley said, for them not to be granted. People have to have been convicted of some major breach, rather than their just being served an abatement notice by the local council. There could be somebody on the council who had a bit of a grudge against the incumbent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e89083a1414f40edbc55c8c2df4e70c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e89083a1414f40edbc55c8c2df4e70c6\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I will touch on two things I want to bring to the attention of the Committee. One is with regard to a regional council\u2019s activities in relation to its duty to act efficiently, and the other is something to do with tender money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EIn section 165I, inserted by clause 21, there is a duty on a regional council to adopt the most efficient and effective allocation mechanism. I have thought about this. The Primary Production Committee discussed it and made a number of amendments. The section states: \u201C\u2026 a regional council must\u2014(a) have regard to\u2014(i) the reasons for and against adopting the proposed method;\u201D. So the council is to act out its role very fairly and squarely, so that nobody can say he or she was not heard or did not have the opportunity to contribute. The regional council will also have regard to \u201C(ii) the principal alternative means available;\u201D. The select committee then struck out\u2014I think, appropriately\u2014\u201C(b) be satisfied that the adoption of the proposed method is the most appropriate for allocation \u2026\u201D. We discussed that, and it became very evident from the submitters that it did not really meet what they were asking for. So now we have got the wording down to what is in section 165I(1)(b)(i), which requires that the council be satisfied that the proposed method is \u201Cnecessary in the circumstances of the region;\u201D. That has a great deal more impact than what was there before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1ce57b465ad4626beeb3f335b5a0cc4\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member sure of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022422f6b84b8604ac5bd4b44303bb094ee\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY\u003C/span\u003E: I am absolutely sure. Also, subparagraph (ii) states: \u201Cthe most appropriate for allocation in the circumstances of the region,\u201D. As the regional council deals with that, it will, I believe, bring about the most efficient and effective allocation that meets the concerns of farmers and applicants to become farmers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe other matter I want to touch on is section 165U, \u201CTender money\u201D, inserted by clause 21. When the select committee asked why the Minister would have 50 percent of the tender money, and the regional authority would have 50 percent, the actual response was that it was a judgment call\u2014if I remember right. There is no basis for that, except that we note that when the regional council receives its 50 percent, it must use its money entirely for the purposes of this Act in coastal marine areas in its region. So I see this bill as promoting the outcome that the money collected through the tendering process go back to address the local regional council\u2019s concerns\u2014multiplication, exploration, and all the rest\u2014in setting up the marine areas they need for potential farmers in the region. I think the bill is, in these regards, very clear and explicit, and I think we need to realise that there is no way that one can be double-minded as to what could happen with this money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u00223dbeb3c0fc7f4f07b960237fa9a7b9b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223dbeb3c0fc7f4f07b960237fa9a7b9b0\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (National\u2014Taranaki-King Country):\u003C/span\u003E It is pleasing to see the Minister of Fisheries back in the chair, although I was looking forward to asking the Minister for Transport Safety a number of reasonably curly questions on this legislation. Like a lot of members who have spoken, I am concerned about the power the Department of Conservation has. Notwithstanding the comments made by the honourable member Jim Peters, who has a great deal of knowledge in this area, I suggest that clause 4A is not the sort of clause that is usually placed in legislation such as this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003ELet us look at Minister Carter, the current Minister of Conservation\u2014or, more accurately, at \u201CMinister Smith\u201D, the former conservation director of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, who makes the decisions in the Minister\u2019s office\u2014or at whoever may be the Minister of Conservation in the future under an MMP coalition with the Green Party if, God forbid, the Labour Party were ever in a position to form another Government. Let us look at what might come of that. Of course, we will not have as Minister the very good member Ian Ewen-Street, who actually has some interest in this area and spent some time on the Primary Production Committee, because he is retiring from Parliament. We will have somebody like Nandor Tanczos or Sue Bradford from the Green Party potentially ending up as the Minister of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e32874807c3f4e5a86a435d753472034\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Shane, you are blinding us with your brilliance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9d59c0d8d83454ab08912a1f37ac454\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I ask the senior Government whip, who is chirping away over there, to take a call and tell me that that will not be so\u2014to rule it out absolutely. Her colleague the Hon Jim Sutton, the Minister of Agriculture, certainly will not. We have put it to him a number of times, and he certainly has not ruled out Sue Bradford as the next Minister of Agriculture or Minister of Conservation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003ELet us look at what this legislation will do in terms of the power of veto it gives to the Department of Conservation. To start off, through an Order in Council the Minister of Conservation can prevent, or impose conditions on, proposed allocation of space. On the surface, that does not sound too bad, if there is a responsible Minister. But, as I said, the chances of that happening are not great, at all. The department gives effect to Government policy on the ability to include the Treaty of Waitangi clauses in allocating space. So there is a second issue that may or may not cause some kind of humbug there. The department can also, under the Resource Management Act, submit an individual consent or objection\u2014that is, the Department of Conservation or its Minister, or \u201CMinister Smith\u201D, whom I have spoken of, could put in a private objection through the Resource Management Act process. If that fails\u2014if the department still has not killed the aquaculture proposal, which clearly would be the objective of that group, based on its track record thus far\u2014then it can effectively veto an allocation at the last hurdle, under the guise of giving effect to Government policy. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and put to bed the fears of those who submitted to the very good Primary Production Committee with those concerns. I am sure he will have a view on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI also ask the Minister to take a call to explain how the aquaculture management areas process will work, in a practical sense, with the Department of Conservation having so much power over it. I say to the Minister that, given the track record of the Department of Conservation so far\u2014its \u201Cpreservation at all costs and to hell with business\u201D sort of approach\u2014the department will kill any proposed aquaculture management area or any proposed aquaculture investment that may be put forward. I also ask that the Minister take a call to explain to those who may be interested in investing millions of dollars in this industry why they would even bother to go through that process when there is so much uncertainty about the likely outcome. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThis industry, particularly with the huge developments in technology that are taking place, potentially could be one of this country\u2019s biggest export industries. It is a growing industry. There is huge opportunity looking forward. With the kind of power of veto that is given to the department under this legislation, why would people even bother to come to New Zealand and look at the proposal? They would look at other opportunities internationally and find that anywhere else in the world, potentially, they could have an easier go at it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002260915be5ca774ba28ffa29f455b168ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260915be5ca774ba28ffa29f455b168ad\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E In my earlier contribution, I raised questions with the Minister regarding the power of the Minister of Conservation under clause 4A(b). I now want the Minister to take note of new section 165O, inserted by clause 21, concerning the power of the Minister of Conservation, because it is even more dramatic, or more draconian, than the clause I referred to earlier. We have here legislation that gives the Minister of Conservation the ability to affect Government policy. If Government policy was all about the genuine promotion of the aquaculture industry, then I would be completely satisfied. But submitter after submitter came to the Primary Production Committee and said that although they hoped the select committee would be able to tidy up the mess around security of tenure, they were equally focused on, and concerned about, the power of the Minister of Conservation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EAs a number of my National Party colleagues have already said, at the moment the power of the Minister of Conservation rests in the hands of one Kevin Smith, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society man in the Minister\u2019s office. What about after the election? God forbid that this occurs, but if Sue Kedgley were to become the Minister of Conservation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a15441e378944aaf9a1ff127d2516927\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: Very good call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a4127ea76f643109f29cb6f45f19969\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Ian Ewen-Street says that that would be a very good call. I am not so sure about that. We have seen reports in the paper over the last 24 hours that Sue Kedgley says it is bad to eat strawberries. Here we are, a week away from Christmas, and the Green Party has a policy that it is bad to eat strawberries. Why is it important for the Minister to be concerned about that? What if the next thing she says is that green-lipped mussels are bad for us? We could then have the Minister of Conservation\u2014who could be Sue Kedgley\u2014saying we should not eat mussels. For God\u2019s sake! I say to the Minister that under this legislation the power exists for that to become Government policy and to stop aquaculture in its tracks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ESo if the Government is not putting those provisions in the legislation for good reason, it should take them out. It should support the amendments that will be advanced by Phil Heatley, the excellent fisheries spokesperson for the National Party, and get rid of new section 165O. It should listen to the submissions of the likes of the New Zealand Law Society, which told the select committee that in terms of all the legislation it has made submissions on, that provision was as draconian as any provision it has ever seen. Submissions like that need to be taken note of, yet the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, will not justify why a provision like that in new section 165O(2)(a) needs to be in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI also want to refer to new section 165W and the subpart associated with private plans. This legislation allows an avenue whereby aquaculturalists who want to expand their operations can do so by means of a private plan change. But the industry said to us that if it goes down that path, it must gift 20 percent of the space to M\u0101ori. That is fundamentally wrong. Why should an industry player have to go through the process, at huge cost, of promoting a private plan change, and then lose 20 percent of the space to M\u0101ori? Not only do aquaculturalists lose 20 percent and bear all the associated costs but Government policy is even more stupid than that. What benefit is it to M\u0101ori to pick up 20 percent of all the little private plan changes around the Marlborough Sounds? The answer is that it is of no value to them, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThose are the two points that I want the Minister to answer. I see the Chairperson is indicating that we have to get closer to the debate. He should pick up the legislation and look at it, because he would see that that is in Part 1. New section 165W starts off new Subpart 2, \u201CPrivately initiated plan changes\u201D. What privately initiated plan changes are all about is that people who want to expand their operation will have to go through a process with the local council and, if they are successful, they will then lose 20 percent of the space to M\u0101ori. That is wrong. The Minister, David Benson-Pope, can sit in his chair if he wants, but I call on him to stand today and justify that. Why should an industry player have to pay the costs associated with going through a private plan change, and then gift 20 percent of the space to M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00221f805fb992984eaabecf9ef3081283cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f805fb992984eaabecf9ef3081283cc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I make no apology, and neither does the Government\u2014nor would, I think, most New Zealanders\u2014for including in this bill statutory powers for the Minister of Conservation and also for local government to ensure that those privileges\u2014and privileges they are, to have use of the public domain and public common space\u2014are properly safeguarded. Having said that, I know the previous speaker is only too aware that much of what he is saying is not quite as close to actual fact as it might be, given his familiarity as the chair of the Primary Production Committee with a lot of the issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EIn terms of what is happening around this legislation, I can do no better than to read out the statement that was released today by the chairman of the New Zealand Aquaculture Council, Callum McCallum, who stated, among other things, that: \u201CThe bill as reported back now is a summary of a huge amount of effort from industry, Government, and officials, and from regional councils. Industry has sought law changes that will support and encourage existing investment in New Zealand aquaculture and will create the right environment to allow sustainable development of New Zealand aquaculture towards the industry targets of $1 billion export annually, and so on.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EI am delighted that the industry has the vision that is so palpably lacking on the Opposition benches. I am delighted that because of the extensive cooperation between the parties involved, such as the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Fisheries, local government, the industry, and also some members in this Chamber\u2014though notably not from the National Party\u2014we are now in the position to take the moratorium off, as the National Party asked me to at the start of the year, and to unleash the amazing potential that exists in this industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022d60dd9aad3f0403fa481243383890d9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d60dd9aad3f0403fa481243383890d9d\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a call with regard to new section 165U, \u201CTender money\u201D. There has been a lot of nonsense spoken about this particular issue\u2014about the fact that this is public space and, therefore, we should give regional councils and the Government the right to charge whatever they like. Let us just think for a moment or two about some other industries in this country that use a public resource. What about the use of fresh water by Meridian Energy, Genesis Power, and Mighty River Power? Those companies use a public resource. Do they tender for the use of that water? I do not think so. So why do we not apply a consistent standard right across the board, and say that everybody who uses a public resource should tender for it? Well, that does not happen. For example, all the natural gas and oil reserves are public property and resources, so why, in many cases, do the oil and gas companies not have to tender to drag those particular valuable commodities out of the ocean floor? What is the difference between those companies and somebody who, in many cases, puts up vast amounts of capital, goes through an extraordinarily elongated process to get a resource consent, possibly even has to compete with the Department of Conservation in tendering for a particular space, and then finds that he or she is being whacked with a huge rental for the use of that space? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe Government is totally ignoring the fact that there is unemployment, and that there is a very valuable use of that capital by an export industry. The aquaculture industry is potentially a multibillion-dollar industry, yet the Government and regional councils are saying that they will charge for the use of that public resource. Well OK, if the Government and regional councils are to do that, then they should do it right across the board, and apply it to Solid Energy, as well. Solid Energy takes vast amounts of coal, which is a public resource, out of the ground, so why do we not get it to tender for its use of coal, which is our resource? This measure is an inconsistency, and it is an example of how poorly the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, has thought through some of the fundamental issues. The tendering process does allow for the best use. If we did have to tender for all public resources, then we would end up with the highest use possible, and that is not a bad system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI draw the Committee\u2019s attention to the use of the public resource we call \u201Cfish\u201D. We have a quota management system that is absolutely brilliant in comparison with anything else that we could have in terms of allocating that public resource, but we can imagine what would happen if somebody with quota had to re-tender every few years for it. We would probably find that the Department of Conservation, with its $300 million or $400 million allocation\u2014as it probably will be next year\u2014could outbid everybody and leave everything alone, while we just try to eke out a living back on the land, if we are still allowed to do that under that department, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ESo I really cannot see why we have a tendering system whereby a marine farmer\u2019s application has to go through a very, very elongated process\u2014a process that will cost the farmer tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, of dollars\u2014only for the farmer to be then faced with having to re-tender for space when it becomes available after the 20-year process. There will be regional councils that could be potentially controlled totally by the Green Party, by that time. My God! We have only to quickly visualise that scenario to recognise what an appalling situation it would be. Where in this bill does it state that a regional council must accept the highest tender? As often as not, when something is tendered there is a statement: \u201CThe highest or any tender not necessarily accepted.\u201D So now there is another process whereby a regional council could veto an application.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd75122bc30e4cae8aa4d4cd4fc42a52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd75122bc30e4cae8aa4d4cd4fc42a52\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E A great many marine farms happen to be in the Marlborough Sounds, which is a beautiful area that I represent at this time. Colin King will be the next MP for that area. He is a great guy. He is a farmer; a good hands-on farmer, who knows what it means to work. If he were the Minister in the chair, he would get up and speak for more than 1\u00BD minutes. This Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, could manage only 1\u00BD minutes. I was timing him\u20141\u00BD minutes, and he did not get it right. I have to ask what this Minister actually knows about this bill. This is a big test for him. All he could do was stand up and quote a press release from the Aquaculture Council. Well, the council said the bill is better now\u2014but it could not have become any worse, I tell the Minister. It absolutely could not have been any worse. It was an absolute shambles, because what started off as a vision to try to get this country\u2019s aquaculture industry growing at the rate that it should be growing turned into a moratorium under this Government, and it was bogged down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and local government were all fighting about what should happen, but who on earth was representing the aquaculture industry? It was not this Minister, or the Minister before him, the Hon Pete Hodgson. Who was standing up for the aquaculture industry? Of course, the Government says that this is better\u2014because the original bill was just a mess. What the industry wanted was a one-stop shop. It does not have that. What it wanted was some finality and to be able to get on and practise the business that it knows about and that it has built in this country. The marine farmers of Marlborough built a fantastic industry without a huge amount of Government interference, and with that they were the highest-income earners for that region. They had an industry growing at a rate of 20 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister what the growth rate is now. Does he know? It is zero percent. There has been absolutely no growth, while the rest of the world is growing at 30 percent. This industry has been brought to a standstill by this Government. Of course the Aquaculture Council says that it wants to get on with it, it is happy, and it wants things to move ahead. Of course, it had to put a huge amount of work into it. It always surprises me that bureaucrats manage to get it so wrong. These industry people work in the field every day, but some bureaucrats in Wellington have never actually been to a marine farm. I remember when the Primary Production Committee came down to Marlborough\u2014we finally got them out of Wellington\u2014and its members were all looking around and asking where the marine farms were. They had the impression that they were wall to wall across the Sounds, which of course they are not. But what I have to ask under Part 1\u2014and I want the Minister to answer this; he started to answer it before and he did not go any further\u2014is if a private plan change occurs for a private person, and 80 percent goes to him and 20 percent goes to M\u0101ori, why on earth would M\u0101ori want just a little patchwork here, there, and everywhere?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8306c1c15e840dd8b9bb01dc1a819ff\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: It has changed. The member should read the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222776d68d87d743228a693693d81f948a\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: It has not changed. The Minister does not understand the private plan change. If we look at Marlborough where a lot of people have their individual farms, which will become aquaculture management areas, if they make a change then 20 percent will go to M\u0101ori. Why would M\u0101ori want just little patchwork areas here and there? I cannot see that. Who will be the M\u0101ori who would get that? There are eight iwi in Marlborough, and I ask which would be the relevant hap\u016B. How will they sort that out? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe provisions of the bill relating to aquaculture management areas and the 20 percent space to M\u0101ori came from the belief that M\u0101ori did not get a fair go in Marlborough. M\u0101ori have 30 percent of the marine farms in Marlborough at this point in time. If they get another 20 percent under this bill, they would have a total of 50 percent. Where did this idea come from, originally, that they did not get a fair deal in Marlborough? That is not the case. Marlborough has a unitary authority, and that was a really big breakthrough in local government. A lot of other areas should consider doing that. It makes it easier for Marlborough to be progressive in the developing of aquaculture management areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe industry was desperate for first right of refusal. These are the men and the women who have been out there forging an industry for New Zealand, and it is a wonderful industry with a very healthy product.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022830a2a5234e24ad2bd5e5581055d2670\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022830a2a5234e24ad2bd5e5581055d2670\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E The Minister owes the Committee the respect to explain some of the complex issues contained in Part 1. I want to focus particularly on something said by my good colleague David Carter, the chair of the Primary Production Committee. As chair he has some detailed knowledge of this bill; I confess that I do not\u2014I am just reading the bill as it is in front of us. What I think deserves clarification is the issue around the new sections inserted by clause 21, starting probably at about new section 165X. The Primary Production Committee, by majority, inserted a whole new section 165Y, going through to section 165Z, and to 165ZA. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister to focus on those sections in particular, because they relate to where an individual seeks a change. It seems that the select committee suggested that the word \u201Cplan\u201D should be dropped and it has suggested \u201Crequest for change\u201D. As I understand it, these sections cover changes to areas that are covered by aquaculture. What is important is what exactly is meant here. There have been allegations that if an individual seeks a change\u2014and the individual is going through all the expense of seeking the change\u2014and should a council grant that change, 20 percent of any area would be allocated to M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI think the Minister spoke to the Chair, Ross Robertson, to indicate that that may not be covered by this part\u2014if I correctly interpreted the Chair\u2019s hand signals. They were such that he wanted my good colleague David Carter to come back to this part of the bill. What is troubling me, though, is that it seems that this part does refer to this issue. I draw the Minister\u2019s attention to new section 165ZA, \u201CAcceptance of request or part of request for change\u201D, which all goes back to section 165X and the issue of request for changes. What it actually states under subsection (1) is: \u201CIf the regional council accepts the request under clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule, the council must specify that the person or persons who requested the plan change are to receive an authorisation under section 165ZB for 80 percent of the available space in the aquaculture management area.\u201D It seems to me that the difference between 80 percent and 100 percent is 20 percent. The question is: what happens to the other 20 percent? Is that the 20 percent that is being actually withheld and allocated to M\u0101ori, or is that in addition to 20 percent that has already been required to be allocated to M\u0101ori? This is what I believe that listeners deserve to be advised on, and I would appreciate if the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor would take a call\u2014and I think he is one of the better Ministers in this Labour Government. I have to confess that I think he is actually a darn sight better Minister than the Hon David Benson-Pope. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EBut the public does deserve to know what this means. Does it mean that where a change is requested\u2014an additional area, perhaps; say an existing aquaculture farmer, for want of a better word, has sought a change and been able to expand his or her operations, and goes into a new area\u2014in accepting this request the council has to allocate only 80 percent? Will that remaining 20 percent be allocated to M\u0101ori? Is that totally separate? If not, where does that 20 percent go? Or is that 20 percent in addition to an overall 20 percent allocation that is being made to M\u0101ori out of aquaculture allocations in New Zealand? Because we hear it said, from those who have been on the Primary Production Committee, that, in fact, to bring M\u0101ori up to 20 percent overall, 40 percent of new allocations could be going to M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI just think that the public of New Zealand deserves an explanation because clearly these clauses I am referring to refer to changes. They refer to what someone will have to go through and pay for if he or she is seeking an expansion to an existing aquaculture area. We deserve to know, because it is not clear from the new sections. Does this mean, if there is a new area to be allocated to an existing farm, and he or she goes through the aquaculture operator, or through the cost of seeking it, 20 percent of that new area will be allocated to M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u0022043cfd61796b41cd857bced5d3e8d37f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022043cfd61796b41cd857bced5d3e8d37f\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to agree with my learned colleague on what has been said in the Committee about the atrocious nature of the amount of aquaculture space being accorded to M\u0101ori through the process of this bill, when I note that there is no justification for it, because aquaculture has existed only in the last 40-odd years. So really where is the premise on which that allocation has been based? I think it is disgraceful. I note that the Greens think it is a logical sequence of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. I cannot understand why they would support that\u2014or actually, perhaps I can; it is the type of thing they would support. But why should they? If this is something that is new and did not exist in 1888, or whatever, why should they be accorded that particularly, or especially? Why will they have that ongoing advantage\u2014and not only that, the advantage of having authorities or organisations under the Tax Act that pay only 19.5c tax in the dollar? So there is no level playing field when it comes to their operations in regard to other operations, which are managed by other organisations that do not have that exemption.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acb82fb543984622bb018408d2362bc1\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: I shall resume my discussion on the 20 percent gift. In essence, that is exactly what it is\u2014a 20 percent gift to M\u0101ori if one applies for a plan change to undertake aquaculture marine farming in an area. [Interruption] Does that come under the definition of koha? Well, it does, because a koha is a gift, and that is a 20 percent gift. We have already had the brain drain as a result of the huge delay in this legislation coming to some form of finalisation. People have gone overseas to establish marine farming in other countries. So we have had a brain drain in that regard. Why would people want to even bother looking at marine farming further in New Zealand if they now have to give a 20 percent gift of that area they are applying for when they apply for a plan change? As we know, if they want to establish a new area they have to go through a plan change under the Resource Management Act, and that is after they have applied for authorisation from the Ministry of Fisheries. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EFirst, they have to apply to the Ministry of Fisheries for an authorisation. When they get that they then apply for their plan change. Imagine if a farmer on land had to give up 20 percent of his or her farm if he or she applied for a consent or a plan change! That would be absolutely unthinkable. I cannot understand why the Government has gone anywhere near this when, as I said before, aquaculture is a new industry for New Zealand. It has not been historic, or been part of the lifestyle or the culture of anybody before 1920 at the very least. It has been suggested that aquaculture has been around for about 40 years, but certainly in the last 10. It has been a significant advance in innovation in our marine area, but then of course it became absolutely stifled by the delays in coming to some sort of finalisation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EWe are appalled that there will be that 20 percent gift, and by the time it is added up, it will be looking like 40 percent. When one has to go through the processes that one has to go through, the Department of Conservation can make life very difficult and add incredible cost to the whole process. The department can be an objector under the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276e7517ad06f4696a83e0143fcacf5b4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: We are talking to Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251f4e33ed2e24213bfb6156b83e4510e\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: We are talking about private plan changes under the Resource Management Act in Part 1. This whole section refers to the Resource Management Act and also crosses into all the other sections. However, as we know, the Resource Management Act is a pretty dreadful document when it comes to applying for anything. Of course, the proposed amendments by this Government will make it incredibly worse, especially when it is affording iwi authorities just about the same status as local authorities. When people apply for a plan change I do not think they will be prepared for the amount of time and money involved to go through that process. It will take only one or two applications for the whole thing to grind to a halt yet again. We have seen that on land and we will see that on water; people will halt the process to such a degree that the activity will be driven off shore. People will not want to invest, yet again, in another industry that has huge potential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u002223a38eb20af747b78d3637a8b49b54aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223a38eb20af747b78d3637a8b49b54aa\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a082af84df014a54841cf69dbff4c336\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a082af84df014a54841cf69dbff4c336\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I particularly wanted to raise the issue that has been raised by other speakers in this short debate with regard to new section 165C(1)(aa) and new section 165C(2A), in clause 21. They refer directly to the issue of the so-called M\u0101ori allocation. I want to establish the exact position of New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIn the first reading debate I raised the issue of the 20 percent threshold. As a caucus we carefully went back through this issue as it became more and more clear that 20 percent would be set down as the threshold. When I started to look at why that should be, I came to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act, which has already been much quoted in the Chamber this afternoon. I found that a memorandum signed by the Crown and M\u0101ori set the level at 20 percent. At that time the National Government\u2014and I was hoping Dr Nick Smith would be here, because he was here at that time\u2014did a most extraordinary thing. It moved the first reading, second reading, Committee stage, and third reading all at once because it was so keen to implement that newly discovered threshold of 20 percent. Therefore, when I heard the Hon Nick Smith say earlier that the 20 percent allocation was based on race, I reflected back to 1992 and saw very, very clearly that that allocation had been set then with regard to the narrow issue of fisheries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWhen I went one stage further and looked at the material and documentation brought to the House at that time, I found that it was very difficult, as has been already stated by one member, to see whether that was so. But, in reality, I believe that the National Party should have credit for its Government\u2019s far-sighted move back then, which, by the way, was opposed by I Peters and W Peters. It was a very far-sighted move on its part. Rather than go back in time as the Hon Nick Smith did, it is far better to see that that threshold is one that we have come to understand\u2014unwillingly on our part\u2014should stand in this legislation. The National Government at the time, with the Hon Doug Kidd and the Hon Doug Graham, set it down. By the way, other members of the House who were here at that time have verified for me that although it was not formally discussed, it was mentioned in caucus and in relevant discussions at the time. That has come from members of the then select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fbf27d1a493457ea2bc5d5bbfb8ed01\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3bd650e5c6a47b5ad8db83bb0f8a324\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The member who has called out that is wrong was not here at the time; he does not know exactly what we are referring to, so his \u201Cwrong\u201D is right!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI want to say very firmly again that what the National Government did right back in 1992 has clarified for New Zealand First members where we should stand in 2004. In so doing, we know that there are immense complications in this matter when it comes to M\u0101ori iwi having to resolve what should be, in my mind, a hap\u016B and wh\u0101nau issue. But we accept the bill because we also accept that it gives a huge economic and social opportunity to the country, but particularly to my region of Northland. The process, with regard to aquaculture management areas being identified, of setting aside a 20 percent piecemeal allocation for M\u0101ori is a very small concession to pay on the part of would-be marine farmers in regard to their total ability to have investment and have a future such as we know this industry can achieve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u002211fab88fd509425ebf612efa549b2c2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211fab88fd509425ebf612efa549b2c2f\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bb937b75e7694a76ae1328b4f2eddb13\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000493\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 4A be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000494\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (b).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022adb12e2daa764dbb940b8a8ef1fbc9c8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000495\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000496\u0022\u003Eto omit from subparagraph (i) of new section 165I(1)(b) the word \u201Cnecessary\u201D and substitute the word \u201Cessential\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cfb6ccd5deca4906a800b270dbd11726\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000497\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000498\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (a) of new section 165O(2).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002219c39287400c420183e8d321381f223a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000499\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000500\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (b) of new section 165O(2).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284187eec3f684f8ea23aca0d7428ceef\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000501\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000502\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (c) of new section 165ZF(1).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227286a4fd6003461fbe89100e74c41f91\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000503\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000504\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (2) of new section 165ZF.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c6af7f7c0ed740c197b84e4b37d4d4bd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000505\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c8ec4e154c0c4938a74515ba01328bd9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224b7778f5b97346daa68bd347df9b12a2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226ef99fe9ec1a4e4ca5c61e68197456d9\u0022\u003EPart 2  Fisheries Act 1996\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022603808ba980e449a9662fc536e14347e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The question now is that Part 2, which includes clauses 36 to 53 and debate on schedule 2A, stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00228ea731ec7798427a862a1d91e97e9599\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ea731ec7798427a862a1d91e97e9599\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E We move on to another very important part of the legislation, whereby we amend the Fisheries Act 1996 and develop a system that recognises the ever-competing interests of aquaculture with the other uses of coastal space. The Primary Production Committee was inundated with submissions from people who were concerned about the Ministry of Fisheries\u2019 role, particularly with regard to the undue adverse effects test. I can sympathise with the submitters. They have had years and years of management\u2014or more correctly mismanagement\u2014by the ministry. There was a distinct lack of confidence that Part 2 could, if enacted, be competently carried out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI have become very familiar with the legislation, and I think this is one aspect of it that the bureaucracy has got right. The bureaucracy has acknowledged that there would be competing interests for aquaculture space. Having accepted that, it has tried to develop a mechanism whereby the most economic use of space will come to the fore over a period of time, and I support that. As we got into the debate, it was clear that when aquaculture was proposed as a use there were three sectors of rights that could be adversely affected: customary fishing rights, recreational fishing rights, and commercial fishing rights. Most of the committee members were of the opinion that if customary fishing rights and recreational fishing rights were to be severely affected, then aquaculturists had to consider finding somewhere else to go. There was an interesting debate around the possibility of a conflict of interest between existing commercial fishers and a proposed aquaculture use. That is an interesting issue, when we consider the property rights that are being conveyed on to commercial fishers via the quota management system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI would also like to pick up on the comments made by Jim Peters earlier in the debate, when he talked about the 1992 deed of settlement. I say to him that the 1992 settlement was very explicit about what it was for. It was a settlement to enable quota management to occur, and a settlement of all issues regarding commercial fishing, whether it was on shore, offshore, or coastal fishing. Therefore, it quite clearly included aquaculture. But it was also a settlement whereby at that stage, in recognition of M\u0101ori interests in commercial fishing, 20 percent of all the species that were to go into quota would go to M\u0101ori. The National Party has no objection to that, at all. In clarifying what Mr Jim Peters said, let me say that we certainly object to the folklore that has developed at present around unfinished business, but I will talk about that at later stages. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWith regard to the undue adverse effect test, that acknowledges that if the Ministry of Fisheries recognises that an application for aquaculture will severely impact on commercial fishing rights, then we have to develop a process whereby there can be some settlement of that. The legislation as it has come back from the select committee goes a long way towards doing that. The first hurdle the committee had to overcome was a distinct recognition that a property right was associated with people who own quota. In my personal view that was not a problem, but I think many members on the select committee had a problem in grappling with the importance of that property right. Once we had achieved recognition that there was a property right, then the ministry test had to judge whether the property right was affected adversely enough, and we discussed through the select committee processes whether undue adverse effect and the wording associated with that was a strong enough test. At the end of the day, I accept what the officials told us\u2014that the test was severe enough\u2014and I hope that proves to be the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe undue adverse effect must be significant. However, the solution to the recognition by the Ministry of Fisheries that there is an undue adverse effect is a process of negotiation between the commercial fisher whose property right is affected and the proponent of aquaculture. The bill as it came before the select committee was, in the opinion of the committee members, unworkable, in that the proponent of aquaculture had to obtain 100 percent agreement from all affected commercial fishing property-right owners. After long deliberations, and with considerable input from the submitters who appeared before us, the possibility of getting 100 percent agreement became a threshold that was too high for the select committee to accept. We therefore developed a significant change in that area, whereby a 90 percent acceptance on the part of each and every quota holder by quantum is enough for the test to be satisfied. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWe then dealt with the issue of the remaining minority 10 percent. The Green member Mr Ewen-Street\u2014who, I must say, put an extremely large amount of work into this legislation, and I thank him for that\u2014was of the opinion that maybe that 10 percent had had the opportunity to come to an agreement and, if it had not, that was simply tough luck. In my opinion that was miles too tough. In many cases, it is actually relatively easy to get 90 percent agreement between quota holders, because one is dealing with only a couple of them. Maybe some people who own a limited amount of quota would be in that 10 percent group. They have a right to some satisfaction, and through the select committee process a mechanism was developed whereby they will be paid out. It is a little like the takeover situation that occurs regularly on the stock exchange now, whereby once an acceptance has been reached with 90 percent of shareholders, the remaining 10 percent of shareholders are compulsorily wiped out. The select committee has provided a mechanism whereby the people who own the remaining minority 10 percent of quota interest at least have the protection of the High Court. The High Court has the opportunity to measure whether the amount of compensation being paid to the other 90 percent of quota holders is a fair and reasonable amount. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI think that the select committee has come up with a vast improvement to the legislation as it was originally submitted to the House, and that the officials have developed a mechanism that well and truly recognises the competing interests. But at the end of the day it is a matter of the most economic use of the space for New Zealand incorporated, and that comes down to who can make the most money out of any particular spot. In saying that, I have little doubt that if one measures that on a hectare-by-hectare basis, then, because of its intensity, aquaculture will win the day. Having said that, I say that a property right is a property right, and that if quota owners are significantly affected, then they must be compensated to an extent that makes it worthwhile for them to give away their property rights in order to allow aquaculture to develop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI think that is the major change that has been developed in Part 2. There are a number of other minor changes that I want to take the opportunity to speak to through the Committee debate, but I look forward to hearing the Minister\u2019s answers to the questions I have raised. I note we now have the third Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs. We hope she understands the bill somewhat better than the Minister does. He clearly does not understand it at all. That was shown by his answers to an earlier point in Part 1, which I will take the opportunity of re-raising in Part 5, regarding the 20 percent and the patchwork-quilt effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1f0edeb0293431d9a1eaf7397f02260\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1f0edeb0293431d9a1eaf7397f02260\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I refer to paragraph (b) of clause 36A, \u201CPurpose\u201D, which states: \u201Crequire all fish farmers to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996;\u201D. I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs: why? It is not a difficult question. Why do we not require all farmers on land, for example, to be registered? The principles of farming are pretty much the same in both contexts. Why do we not require everybody to be registered, and have a huge Big Brother to keep an eye on things? Why do fish farmers need to be registered? Once they have been allocated space in an aquaculture management area, why on earth should they then have to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996? What useful purpose will that serve? Will it determine whether a fish farmer is a good, a bad, or a mediocre fish farmer? What are the sanctions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2fbb8c7d5e943c59238690b4cc1a724\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: A sufficient fish farmer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022413fac5559a84b818e1e745dacdeab76\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. What are the sanctions if someone is deemed to be a poor feeder of fish or a bad fish farmer? The mind starts to boggle. Will the Animal Welfare Act be invoked against fish farmers if they do not feed their fish adequately? What is the purpose of that measure? Why are we adding more bureaucratic structures to the industry, when they are not needed? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI can only assume that it is all part of a bureaucratic structure that ensures that everybody is registered and accounted for. We will have people poring over information to ensure that everyone is registered and up to date. That raises an interesting question: are fish farmers to be registered on a yearly basis, or a 5-yearly basis? How often are they to be registered? And what happens if they let their registration lapse? What will occur then? What sanctions will there be against fish farmers if they are deemed to be unregistered? One finds the situation is quite extraordinary, when one thinks about it. I ask those questions of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, who seems to be busy with her Christmas cards and is not overly interested in this debate. [Interruption] I withdraw and apologise to the Minister. She is actually doing some writing. It is nice to know that that is keeping the Minister occupied. I am not really getting an answer on that matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe other issue is that of fishers unduly affected by the proposed aquaculture agreements\u2014the management areas\u2014and of persons who wish to undertake aquaculture activities in their area. Let me inform the Committee of the comments made by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council, which essentially said that the undue adverse effects test on fishing that is to be carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries uses a process that, to marine farmers and fishers, is not transparent. The council said that the process cannot be appealed on substance, but only via judicial review, and that there is also an option for an aquaculture agreement to be entered into with affected fishers, although every quota holder and every fishing-permit holder in the area must agree. I understand that that has been altered somewhat and that there is now a provision for 90 percent acceptance, which, of course, is perfectly reasonable. However, I can foresee a time when even that change will not be sufficient. The New Zealand Aquaculture Council believes that the provision is unrealistic and unworkable. I cannot see an opportunity for even a 90 percent agreement to occur in many areas. So what will happen when we get a Mexican stand-off type of situation? As far as I can see, there is no mechanism in the bill that will enable some movement to occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u00227225f744c54e4863a4184e4fceb01dd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227225f744c54e4863a4184e4fceb01dd7\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Under the present legislation, if people want to establish a marine farm they have to get resource consent and then go to the Ministry of Fisheries for a fishing permit. This legislation proposes that those two steps be amalgamated into one, so that the input from the Ministry of Fisheries is much earlier in the decision-making process. If a council wants to declare, or to increase the area of, an aquaculture management area, it invites the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Fisheries to make an aquaculture decision about whether there is an undue adverse effect on quota holders or other fishers\u2014and it is not just quota holders; it is people who have fishing permits for non-quota species, as well. The hurdle to jump over is actually quite high. The chief executive officer has to say, firstly, that there is an effect, secondly, that it is an adverse effect, and, thirdly, that it is an undue adverse effect. As the bill was reported to us, if the chief executive officer said that yes, there was an adverse effect\u2014in other words, said no to the council\u2014it was a \u201Cblack box\u201D decision. The council invited the Ministry of Fisheries to make a decision and, if it said no, that was the end of it. There was no recourse except for, perhaps, judicial review. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EWe did two things at the Primary Production Committee, and I think they were very positive steps. First, we allowed people to appeal the chief executive\u2019s decision to the High Court on matters of substance as well as process, so that substantive issues could go to the High Court. Second, we provided that the alternative the applicant has is to seek the aquaculture decision that my colleagues have described, whereby the person who is seeking to have a marine farm goes to the affected fishers, whether they are quota holders or permit holders, and seeks their agreement, whether by paying them money or by some other agreement\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6f8d12efcc74bbbb9dbfe0cefdeda1c\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s bribery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d58742a7ff2468fb637f58c4a69943d\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET\u003C/span\u003E: No, it is a commercial decision; it is not bribery. The applicant seeks their agreement to allow aquaculture in that space. I need to point out that we are not talking about fin-fish species\u2014the migratory or the mobile species that can just swim away. If fishers have a quota for kahawai, tuna, or something like that, it is very unlikely to be affected by a marine farm. The kinds of species that we are talking about are the sedentary ones. I guess that species like scallops and oysters are the main ones, but it also applies to crayfish and other relatively immobile species like that. Those quota holders and permit holders have to be consulted by the people who want to get the aquaculture management area, whether it is by the council or the individual applicant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EMy colleague David Carter said that I was a bit tough on the people who were left out when the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people was reached. My argument at the time was that if the applicant for a marine farm had been around to everyone and had got the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people, we did not really want the last 10 percent to hold out just for a better price. My argument was that they had had their opportunity, and that they could either accept the price that was offered or miss out completely. On reflection, I think I was wrong in making that call originally\u2014I think it was a bit tough. But I do think that the remaining 10 percent of affected people should not have an incentive to hold out. Those people should get the same price as the other 90 percent\u2014the average price\u2014or a price that is equivalent to what they got. The fall-back position, if no price can be agreed on, is recourse to the High Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u00229622a1e1b4b2419d99aab027f45ae575\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229622a1e1b4b2419d99aab027f45ae575\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E As we are aware, to make aquaculture a realistic occupation and business we had to make changes. There was a need for changes to the Fisheries Act 1996, and Part 2 relates to that. I want to just touch on two or three things. This whole part, in the way it has ended up, is very workable and worthwhile, and I think the industry will be a lot stronger for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EOne of the things that came across very early related to section 186E, \u201CChief executive to make aquaculture decision\u201D, in clause 41. Originally, that provision stated that the chief executive had to make aquaculture decisions \u201Cas promptly as was reasonable in the circumstances,\u201D. The select committee saw fit to put a deadline on that, rather than to allow him just to go on and on. The submitters told us many, many times about a sort of death by no answer, and they did not want that again. So we put in \u201CWithin 6 months\u201D. I thought that was a good threshold of time within which everybody could put in requests. It would allow time for everybody to examine and put some legs to this legislation, with particular reference to the fisheries part of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe second thing I make reference to relates to the undue adverse effect on fishing. A number of speakers have made reference to that. It really is the hub of certainty for commercial fishers, who have been alluded to and talked about, but I recall that the chief executive has to ensure that customary fishers as well as recreational fishers are satisfied. The undue adverse effect test is put in so that everyone can ensure he or she is covered and is not neglected in the negotiations or the inquiry to have an aquaculture management area. My friends the recreational fishers are very, very happy that there is room for them to state their case and have the chief executive stand by and apply that test to the entire process of establishing an aquaculture management area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWe think that, with regard to the undue adverse effect test, if the elements illustrated in new section 186G(a) to (f), inserted by clause 41, are not picked up by the regional councils and the chief executive, then they are failing in their duty. By the councils and the chief executive applying those things as their duty, the aquaculture farming industry should go ahead without as much default as in the past. So this is good legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe last provision I make reference to is section 186ZD, \u201CFishers whose consent is necessary for aquaculture agreement\u201D, which relates to the owners of commercial fish quota. That has been spoken about before. When the bill came to us initially, the proposals were fairly weak and draconian, and possibly left a no-win situation for everybody. The present bill gives a clear 90 percent quota arrangement. If people cannot meet that, then the 10 percent can be bought out, as in a stock exchange parallel. But there is a process beyond that; if people wish to appeal, they can. I think the High Court process that has been put in place strengthens this Fisheries Act and makes the position certain for everybody within the industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003ESo I am glad that Part 2 has been modified and strengthened from the provisions we first saw. I think we have taken account of the views of virtually all of those who objected by way of submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u00221ed2177e076b485c8c31f63f7ff592b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ed2177e076b485c8c31f63f7ff592b5\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I have to say that the issues regarding undue adverse effects and how commercial-fishing interests meet\u2014and in many cases collide with\u2014aquacultural interests were of intense interest to us on the Primary Production Committee. We had quite robust discussions with submitters as they presented their views.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EOn the one hand, aquaculturalists came forward and said, on the whole, that although they acknowledged that commercial-fishing interests have a part to play in the marine area\u2014which is clearly obvious\u2014they felt that the powers given to commercial fishers in terms of thwarting aquaculture were far too tough. On the other hand, commercial fishers, on the whole, put forward their property rights and their concern that aquaculture should not develop too rapidly and too well in too many areas such as to impede commercial fishing, particularly where sustainable commercial-fishing takes are proven and have been consistent over time. The committee members listened to those contrary views. We had robust discussions with proponents of both sides of the debate and came to some agreement, as outlined in the clauses before us now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EHowever, there are still some unanswered questions on how aquaculture interests will be balanced with commercial-fishing interests into the future. National Party members support greater interaction between the two sectors. Together, they must have timely, fully transparent, and cost-effective processes in order to come to some conclusion about the future of both in a particular area. The process as it stands is a split one. Marine farmers came to the ministry many years ago and said that the two-stage process whereby they got a fisheries permit under the Fisheries Act then a resource consent under the Resource Management was too time consuming, exhausting, and costly. They needed a one-stop shop. I know that the ministry looked hard at giving them a one-stop shop. It has not come up with a one-stop shop, but with a process that is probably as close to it as one can get.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIf we explore the clauses here, we discover that the process is still in two stages. The regional councils will look at the environmental effect that aquaculture may have on commercial fishing, and the Ministry of Fisheries will look at what spatial restrictions aquaculture places on commercial fishing. When the regional councils go to the ministry for an aquaculture decision, it will simply ask how the spatial element of an aquaculture management area will affect commercial fishers. How will it affect the access of commercial fishers to their fishery? One can imagine that with highly mobile fish stocks such as kahawai, as I think the Green member mentioned, or snapper, or with those fish that are way offshore where there is no aquaculture issue, such as tuna and that type of thing, a marine farm will not have too much spatial impact. The fish are mobile; they will simply go elsewhere and be caught elsewhere. There is not much argument around that. But with largely immobile species, such as crayfish or scallops, or species that are inshore where marine farms are likely to be, such as flounder or mullet, there will be some sort of spatial impact on commercial-fishing interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe Ministry of Fisheries has to make that decision, but it is restricted solely to that spatial element. It has no say on what environmental effects marine farms might have on commercial fishing, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u00229434214c38524cfdb4a23ac687643d17\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229434214c38524cfdb4a23ac687643d17\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to follow on from where my very good colleague Phil Heatley finished off and talk about the undue adverse effects of aquaculture on fishing. In the Marlborough Sounds, at the moment the farms are really quite small in relation to what is being proposed with deep-sea farming. Deep-sea farming is quite experimental and as yet has not really been trialled because of the moratorium, but it is the next big step for marine farming in New Zealand. If it goes ahead and proves to be successful, those undersea farms will not have a visual impact but they could take up a large amount of space. If they do, we will see more effect on the actual fisheries process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EMarine farmers are happy at this time to see some finality so that their industry can move ahead, but they certainly are not happy that a one-stop shop process has not been delivered by this Government. That was the other major issue they wanted. The first issue was first right of refusal, so that those who had invested in the industry could maintain their business; the second was a one-stop shop. Those who have been around the aquaculture industry will know that the process at the moment, whereby people have to go through a Resource Management Act process then through a fisheries permit process, is extremely frustrating. The Ministry of Fisheries was taking over 2 years to process applications for just small\u2014in some cases\u2014extensions to marine farms, and, during that time, the resource consents under the Resource Management Act would run out. When the Government extended the moratorium, it had to pass special legislation to capture those people who had gone to the time, trouble, and effort to get a new resource consent only to find that, because of the process through the Ministry of Fisheries, it had run out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EWhen they rang up and asked questions they were charged $200 an hour. That was the charge-out fee with which the ministry tried to stop angry, frustrated marine farmers from ringing up and asking what the ministry was doing. When I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries about the issue, he said he had offered the ministry more resources, and it had said it did not need them\u2014that it could cope. Two years later, it is having to put in a whole lot more staff to deal with these permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EMembers can understand an industry that was growing at 20 percent and is now growing at 0 percent becoming extremely frustrated. The men and women who forged an industry and developed it for New Zealand, and who were way ahead of the game\u2014way ahead of Chile and other areas, like Australia\u2014have been basically stalled at the gates of the 21st century. They are pleased to see this bill being debated tonight, but they are not pleased that they still do not have just one process. They have to go through the Resource Management Act process for a consent, but the Ministry of Fisheries can still stop a process from going forward. It can look at the spatial effects and stop the process if it feels there is an undue adverse effect on fishing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI know that the recreational fishers in the Sounds will be happy. We love those marine farms, because there are always lots of snapper around them\u2014but I should not give away the places where everyone should go and fish. The main effect will be on the commercial fishermen, and they will have concerns about large spatial areas, because they want to be able to fish in that space themselves. However, aquaculture does make a lot of money for Marlborough\u2014it was our highest income-earner\u2014and it could make a huge amount of money for New Zealand. But the fact is that Australia and Chile are now getting into the game in a very big way, and we have lost quite a lot of our intellectual capital to those countries because people have been so frustrated by this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022749a724d-1ef9-49cb-9ba2-2610403653ea\u0022 data-id=\u00224588ce812b82427297e81db6b3b5adb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022749a724d-1ef9-49cb-9ba2-2610403653ea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224588ce812b82427297e81db6b3b5adb2\u0022\u003EDIANNE YATES (Labour\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4a36661c28f4964b600fd572cf5c391\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4a36661c28f4964b600fd572cf5c391\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 of the bill, as previous speakers have said, is all about the tensions that exist for competing space\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221db6ac2f1fc043ad8348de53ade1846c\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Tensions is a big word.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f96c6ee99d8c417ba27a52c4453fafb0\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Tensions is the word\u2014in public land. We are talking about the water column and the sea bed. We are talking about what people can do in it, what its most profitable use is, and also, to a degree, what is fair and how one goes about that. If it were perpetual lease, as proposed by the ACT party, one could just tell other people to go away. If it were fee simple, one could tell them to go away: \u201CThis is mine, and we don\u2019t want to have anything to do with you.\u201D But because it is not, a mechanism needed to be worked out, and I think that those of us on the Primary Production Committee, at least, have agreed that we have come up with the best we possibly can. We think it is fair, we think it serves the commercial imperatives that are inherent in this business, and we think that it is as good as we can get for the environment. Those are the things we have to worry about, and those are the things that make it such a difficult business. When we are talking about other marine life and fish\u2014scallops, oysters, flounder, and other fish that hang around in the shallows\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e89da069ce6469e84396c2f8be83150\u0022\u003EShane Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Making my mouth water.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8c6405b13b044d39757cdcdf0fb4a51\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292ba3b35c2284133810f5ee6143ce931\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d rather be fishing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bef3bbcc633c4b41b8f2e6a8e73ed62b\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot speak because my mouth is watering so much. All those things must be taken care of. I will go back to the fact that one of the reasons New Zealand First supports this bill is that it is balanced, and it does all those competing things and takes all those interests into account. We believe that it does a very difficult job well. That is why we support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u00220e006363e16e441f8b21db7a131204b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e006363e16e441f8b21db7a131204b8\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7089051ed304373b1e2b6ac2cba84b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7089051ed304373b1e2b6ac2cba84b6\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I will continue on from my previous speech regarding the tension between the interests of commercial fishers and the interests of marine farmers. I pointed out that the Ministry of Fisheries, in making an aquaculture decision, is to be focused only on spatial issues; that is, how a marine farm, or an aquaculture management area, will spatially affect commercial fishing interests\u2014how much commercial fishers will be displaced from a particular area by marine-farming activity so that they no longer have access to a fishing resource. We were particularly interested in submitters who talked about scallops, simply because there is an enhancement programme in which the farmers seed scallops, they grow, and recreationalists have access to those scallops, as do the commercial fishers. There is a concern that that enhancement programme could seriously be affected by marine farms and the industry developing excessively in that area. That was a good point made to us by submitters. Also, inshore fisheries representatives, such as flounder fishers, put up a good case, as did others that would be affected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe regional council, on the other hand, takes an aquaculture decision and lays upon it consideration of the effect that marine farms have on commercial fishing with regard to environmental impacts. Those environmental impacts might somehow affect water quality\u2014because, clearly, if marine farming in any way deteriorates water quality, and that affects the fish, that will have an adverse affect on commercial fishing. If marine farms in some way are affecting spawning or stock development, then that will adversely affect the fishery and commercial fishers, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe raised a particular concern at the select committee, and we have raised it again here tonight\u2014perhaps the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, would like to take a call on it\u2014which is the issue of regional councils actually having the ability to measure the environmental impacts on commercial fish species. We know that the Ministry of Fisheries often subcontracts research to the National Institute of Atmospheric and Water Research on the environmental effects on commercial fishing species in various areas around New Zealand, but where are regional councils to get that skill base from? Are they going to contract out? They will have to, because currently no regional council in New Zealand\u2014even Northland Regional Council, which is far in the lead when it comes to aquaculture development and research\u2014has staff skilled in that area. [Interruption] The Minister suggests that the Ministry of Fisheries will be contracting to regional councils\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a890def8ec3f4a29abfab2d1362e1f73\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: The Ministry of Fisheries will be providing that support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9f0c5db947e44fe835f2da4e7b705fd\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister chipped in to suggest that the Ministry of Fisheries will be supplying that service to regional councils. Well, I hope that the Minister\u2019s assurance does come to pass. Regional councils certainly do not have the staff, skills, scientists, or research base at the moment to measure the environmental effects on spawning, on stock development, on whole fishery development, on the interaction between various fisheries, aquaculture, and marine farms, and so on and so forth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo I thank the Minister for that, and I put it to the Committee that there is a promise there from him as the Minister of Fisheries that his ministry will be available to regional councils, and I hope that that is the case. My concern is that if all the regional councils, or a fair number of them, come to the ministry all at one time, I hope that it has the ability to meet that scientific need. Certainly, there will be a demand for that, as required in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f040ca3b38574a09a7cb29ed34e9c726\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f040ca3b38574a09a7cb29ed34e9c726\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT party is against this bill. It is a bill that shows how the Government and\u2014after hearing Doug Woolerton speak\u2014New Zealand First lack vision of what aquaculture could achieve through the years ahead in New Zealand. It also shows how they lack insight into what an industry needs so that it can develop. It is very, very simple. Members should try to imagine\u2014I would not expect the Minister in the chair to understand this, but I would expect Mr Doug Woolerton to appreciate it\u2014a dairy farm operating under rules like these. They should try to imagine developing the farming industry on land under rules like these. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272f1e3c73fe3440fbec9049d9cb9486e\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton\u003C/span\u003E: Dairy farmers have twice as many rules as there are in here, my friend. You wouldn\u2019t have a clue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3a44463110f4e1f988bdcb9aee19493\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Doug Woolerton calls out and says: \u201CHang on\u2014the dairy industry has twice as many rules as the aquaculture industry has.\u201D Well, we are not about defending those rules for dairy farmers; we are about getting rid of them. But here is the thing: dairy farmers at least have some security of tenure on the land and some security of tenure on their investments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EIt is true to say that the socialist Government David Benson-Pope and Dover Samuels represent is marauding dairy farmers\u2019 land, and other farmers\u2019 land, with their \u201Cright to roam\u201D legislation, which I see that New Zealand First supports. We have tried this experiment before in New Zealand, and it failed. We tried this experiment in the high country of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022271738ee98b248fd9a4eb45d6bb454ec\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: When?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b51767f173242bdb5be3fd160d78a8c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we did. I know that Dover Samuels would not know, but I expect other members to know. When the high country of New Zealand was put out at short lease like this, what was the result? It was a failure of investment, of over-grazing, and of the destruction of the land. That is what happens when farmers do not have secure title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWe have an enormous coastline and vast ocean resources out to the 200-mile limit for deep-sea farming. If we had a Government\u2014indeed, a Parliament\u2014that had some vision for what New Zealand could achieve in this country with aquaculture, we would not be debating this bill; we would be debating something far, far better. Its basis would be secure property rights for aquaculturists, just like those rights provided so that farming can develop in New Zealand. Mr Samuels should try to imagine these rules applying back in 1840 to the farmers who cut farms out of the bush of New Zealand. They would not have done it. They would not have invested and they would not have worked to develop their markets. Can we not learn from that lesson? Dover Samuels sits over there, but he would not apply these rules to his wonderful motel in Matauri Bay, because he would want to have secure property rights. He will not work away in an industry in which, potentially, he will lose his rights after a few years\u2014where the Government can come along at any time and change the rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThis bill lacks insight into what an industry needs to develop, and it lacks vision. It lacks the vision of what this country could achieve by looking ahead 10 or 20 years. I think that in the future, when aquaculture around the world is a standard way of rearing and harvesting fish, New Zealanders will look back at this legislation and wonder what Parliament was thinking of. How dopey could it be to repeat the mistake that had already been made on the land in the high country of New Zealand? Just as we look back on what was done in the high country, we can ask how the Government could create such a perverse set of incentives that would fail to see an industry take off. Well, that is what David Benson-Pope\u2019s legacy to New Zealand is. I know that Dover Samuels has such a short-term horizon that he just thinks this is funny. However, here we are standing at the dawn of a wonderful industry that could do so much for our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8b2432e88774ff5b3689ea42d24ae3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8b2432e88774ff5b3689ea42d24ae3e\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002291093e567da6497994be38ed4da8ab97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291093e567da6497994be38ed4da8ab97\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E Is it not interesting that the two calls taken by the Labour member who sat on the Primary Production Committee, the Hon Dover Samuels, have both been to close the debate down? That was the member who promised to table documents before the select committee that set out the unfinished business, yet we are still waiting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI shall talk specifically to two parts of the bill: section 186G and then section 186E, inserted by clause 41. It is section 186G that proves the point of having a robust select committee hearing, because this provision is all about the matters that must be considered before an aquaculture decision is made. I will not read them all out, because that would take too long, but Minister David Benson-Pope had originally included in the list of those matters, under paragraph (g), \u201Cany other matter that the chief executive considers relevant.\u201D Well, members can imagine the response we got from the industry. There was enough of a test regarding the undue adverse effect that has to be gone through to establish equity between commercial fishers and a proponent of aquaculture, but in that provision we were meant to give the ministry carte blanche to consider any matter at all. It did not have to be justified before it made an aquaculture decision that put that aquaculture proponent into huge difficulty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI have to say that submissions were unanimous in that regard. I cannot think of one in favour of the provision. Maybe we had one from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, or from somebody who may have been saying that it should remain, but there certainly was not any relevant submission arguing that it should not be deleted. So in that regard the select committee resolutely argued and agreed, and I thank Dover Samuels for his intermittent attendance at the committee, when he too may not have been aware that we argued successfully for section 186G(g) to be deleted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to speak about is the way the Minister, David Benson-Pope, presented the legislation to the select committee. The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries was required to make an aquaculture decision but, under the legislation proposed by the incompetent Minister, he had as long as he wanted to make that decision. So a proponent for aquaculture would come along with a proposal and would have to go through the process of having it checked to see whether there was an undue adverse effect, and then the Ministry of Fisheries could sit on that proposal absolutely forever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EAs was said earlier in the debate, there was not a lot of confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries. That could be related to the Minister, or it could be related to past history within the industry, which would equally be absolutely excusable. But, again, the select committee worked hard to ensure that there was a time limit within which the Ministry of Fisheries had to act. That time limit is 6 months. Some people argued that it should be less. Why should the ministry not get off its chuff, do the work, and come up with a decision? I was one of those who felt that there had to be a reasonable period of time, because too often I have seen in bureaucracy that if the decision is hard to make and the clock is ticking, then the easiest thing in the world for the bureaucrats is just to put a rejection through and have the proposal not proceed. So I think the select committee has come up with something workable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe issue then arose as to whether, if there is insufficient information, the ministry should be able to go back and seek more information. The select committee supported that. In the event that that happens, the legislation as it is now reported back means that, for the ministry officials themselves, the clock stops ticking. So there is a 6-month time frame, and if at any time throughout that process the ministry says it genuinely does not think it has enough information, then it goes back to the proponent, and the clock goes on hold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u00222b17901af669443890ac63dd7d0655eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b17901af669443890ac63dd7d0655eb\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222d5a82eff0814a1cbc66eb53491b60f1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000573\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002243ac7a1915c941aa9c7a05100ecf9eb2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022db1b2a8da7e34248afd659f709c760c2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00221720ada9bbf74fb49690644031cc047b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221720ada9bbf74fb49690644031cc047b\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I notice that the size of Parts 3 and 4 is, shall we say, a bit on the tight side\u2014that is one way to describe it. I wonder whether it would assist the Chair, and perhaps the Government whips, if we were able to minimise the number of calls on these two parts, for obvious reasons\u2014largely, that we are dealing with only five clauses between the two parts. I note that Part 5, which deals with M\u0101ori commercial aquaculture claims settlement, is a substantial part of the legislation. Although this is probably technically out of order, just to assist you, Mr Chairperson, I advise that the Opposition will take a minimal number of calls on Parts 3 and 4 but I seek your indulgence in going through Part 5, as a substantial part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb7093cbf8d146b0aa4f5308e41c94ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb7093cbf8d146b0aa4f5308e41c94ca\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and just say that that is entirely up to the member. Of course, when it comes to closures, that is a matter for the Chair to decide, but I am sure that what the member has made obvious will be taken into consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u002290718654f7954c2186681e800a78369c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290718654f7954c2186681e800a78369c\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I just offer New Zealand First\u2019s cooperation. We would be happy to put Parts 3 and 4 without debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022309a88412f4845eda7386af4157ebbf1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022309a88412f4845eda7386af4157ebbf1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, that is up to the Committee. The member must\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c5b9ce800bb4239bdc2e67d5800a1d9\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: Seek leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b7d51108509470b88ec1a9d030be5f9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: That is a matter for the member himself to decide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dcdd3ee2ae064fcd86266677437a4b0f\u0022\u003EPart 3  Conservation Act 1987\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00220a5632fdd5f94bb3bb9160f8883241de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a5632fdd5f94bb3bb9160f8883241de\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I certainly want to speak to Part 3, \u201CConservation Act 1987\u201D, which contains clauses 54 and 55 and the consequential amendments. I want to do so for two reasons, because this part is unique in two ways. First of all, amongst 141 submissions we got no submissions on this part at all. To date we have been debating all the controversial parts of the legislation, with reams and reams of submissions received from people who knew that the Minister had made a mess of the legislation. Finally, we come to a little bit in the middle of the bill\u2014Part 3, \u201CConservation Act 1987\u201D\u2014with only two clauses, and, lo and behold, even the industry had nothing to complain about in this regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EBut this part of the legislation is also unique in another respect. Since the debate has started, the Minister has had to table four separate detailed Supplementary Order Papers, because of his incompetence, and not one of them has to correct clauses 54 and 55. So I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister. Good on him; he has finally got one part right\u2014the only part in 200 pages of legislation that he can say he presented to the Parliament with any competence at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWhile I congratulate the Minister, that is a dreadful record. The Minister of Fisheries, who is meant to be in charge of the aquaculture reform legislation, presents to Parliament 240-odd pages that are a diabolical mess, and causes the select committee to work for, I think, 34 hours of deliberation\u201434 hours of hearing submissions. And here we finally come across a little snippet in Part 3 whereby we find two clauses that the industry had no objection to and, more important, two clauses that the Minister has not had to bring a Supplementary Order Paper into the Committee for us to correct his incompetence with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe Minister might like to tell members how he got Part 3, \u201CConservation Act 1987\u201D, so right, when it is not even his portfolio area, yet he got every other part of the bill into one unholy mess. I do not think that the credit can go to Chris Carter\u2014I do not think so. I think the credit does not go to the Minister, either. I think that this is one where officialdom has done well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022709c4a5efd2949b0872a088ac8e417b8\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: No!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e252c49874d437f98bd6c3aa9763e64\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I think that it is. I do not think that David Benson-Pope even realised\u2014[Interruption] Ian Ewen Street mentions that I should wash my mouth out, but I think we have to realise that in legislation like this, if somebody gets something right, it is fair to acknowledge it. That is the purpose of the Committee stage of the House. So in amongst\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db97b0322470418c9de32edc7273a934\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: If they had a decent chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d86f35e2d214a47aff2719ba2764b2b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Darren Hughes is saying that the chair is at fault\u2014the chair is at fault, because there are two clauses in the bill that did not require altering through a select committee. So that is the chair\u2019s fault! Well, I say to Darren Hughes that he is a new member and he will not be here for much longer, because Nathan Guy is out there tonight. He is door-knocking in \u014Ctaki. He will be here and he will be an excellent member. Everybody says he will be an excellent member, because they have expressed a lot of disappointment with Darren Hughes. But Darren Hughes will realise, when he reminisces on his short parliamentary career, that one does not blame the chair of a select committee when two clauses out of a couple of hundred come back unchanged. That is not something one praises the chair of the select committee for, and it is certainly not something one blames the select committee chair for. It means that somebody presented that little part of the bill to the Hon David Benson-Pope, and that little part was right. So I say to the Minister, congratulations on doing that, at least.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba8b61d156df4e92a66673e16b06bae9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba8b61d156df4e92a66673e16b06bae9\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I also rise to discuss in detail clauses 54 and 55 in Part 3, \u201CConservation Act 1987\u201D. Members will recall that this legislation is to be cut into seven different bills. One of them will be in relation to the Conservation Act 1987 specifically, which is represented by Part 3 of this bill. Clause 55(2) proposes to substitute section 26ZG(2)(c) of the Conservation Act, which provides: \u201C(c) The taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of any freshwater fish under the authority of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts.\u201D The new section 26ZG(2)(c) will provide: \u201C(c) the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of\u2014(i) the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts; or (ii) the registration of a fish farmer under Part 9A of the Fisheries Act 1996.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThat is what this clause does. It repeals those provisions relating to the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish, and replaces them with those provisions in clause 55. Why this is of interest to the marine farming and aquaculture sector is simply that the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act, and a third Act, the Fisheries Act 1996, all impinge on freshwater fish, which may or may not be farmed, may be wild, or may be somehow in an aquaculture business. All those Acts impinge on those species. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo under this reform bill, there is a bringing together of the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal regulations under that one provision. Those reforms bring it all together. Having it spread out amongst the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act, the regulations under those Acts, and also Part 9A of the Fisheries Act 1996 made it all the more confusing. This is why we have general support from the industry on this. We have support from regional councils, the Department of Conservation, those on the Primary Production Committee, and officials, as well. There was no argument on it. It is nice to come across a provision in this reform bill where there is no controversy and there are no last-minute changes. As the Hon David Carter pointed out, it is something we can, indeed, agree with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that through the course of this debate the Department of Conservation has come under a fair bit of flack, because of the amount of interference that it can have in marine farming under this reform legislation. We know that it can effectively veto the allocation of marine-farming space at the last hurdle if the department\u2019s officials do not succeed as objectors to the consent being granted, or succeed as objectors to the original aquaculture management area. So after the department has a go at the aquaculture management area that the regional council is keen to set up and it fails, and after having a go at the resource consent that the individual farmer applies for and it also fails there, the department can then have another slap at getting a veto in the end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba697a73366145e0a9f30ddd661ce5bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba697a73366145e0a9f30ddd661ce5bb\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a short call on Part 3. I am not sure I agree with Mr Heatley that clause 55 is a non-controversial clause. Clause 55(2) states that section 26ZG(2) of the Conservation Act is to be amended by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: \u201C(c) the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of\u2014(i) the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts;\u201D. Well, it has just occurred to me while I was sitting listening to the debate to ask the Minister, for example\u2014and I would ask him to take a call on this\u2014where sea-run trout sit in this particular aspect. Are they freshwater fish or saltwater fish? Which category do they come under?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EIf people decide that farming them is an appropriate thing to do, and some sea-run trout are found in their salmon cage, will the full weight of the law descend on those people? It is a perfectly reasonable question. Salmon swim up rivers. They are freshwater fish, we might say, but they spend a huge amount of time at sea, as well. Are they freshwater fish or saltwater fish? I think those questions are perfectly fair and reasonable to ask, given the fact that there is a horrendous penalty for anybody who dares to challenge the monopoly rights of Fish and Game, for example. Part 3 is really all about the fact that Fish and Game does not want anybody to farm fish that have huge commercial value. Of course, salmon have an enormous commercial value, and they are farmed, but sea-run trout are certainly not allowed to be farmed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI ask whether they are freshwater fish or saltwater fish, for I am not sure, and I do not have that knowledge. Maybe some member in the Chamber, or an official, knows. Indeed, the Minister, who is meant to know all about this bill, should take a call to tell us exactly how this specific clause relating to the Conservation Act 1987 applies to sea-run trout. I see that the Minister is engaged in heavy conversation, and is studiously ignoring this particular question. It is perfectly relevant. Can the Minister please explain why, or how, it is a silly question? It is perfectly reasonable for a marine farmer to look at farming sea-run trout in one of these aquaculture management areas. I ask why that could not, or should not, be done, if in fact there is a first-rate market for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EOne of the problems we have with this particular bill that this Minister totally fails to understand is that flexibility is part of this whole industry. If one particular fish species that is being farmed is not providing the commercial returns that farmers need, then the marine farmers need to be able to change from that species to another species, to develop a market, and to make some dollars for themselves. That will possibly be outlawed shortly by this Government, as well. Making money for oneself is not an acceptable process, it seems to me, in terms of the thinking of this particular Government, so it tries to stop marine farmers from doing what I think is a perfectly sensible thing. I can only ask this Minister to give me the answer to this question of whether sea-run trout are classified as freshwater fish. It is a perfectly reasonable question, and I yield my speaking slot to the Minister so that he can take a call to tell me the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u00220b475a7f4b47475b884b419c8332cd20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b475a7f4b47475b884b419c8332cd20\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I am delighted to speak to this rather significant Part 3, which relates to the Conservation Act. An interesting question has been raised by Gerrard Eckhoff. Clearly, the nod from the Minister signified that sea-run trout is defined as freshwater fish, so it cannot be farmed in the sea. That raises concerns around how far the Government wants to go with this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EWe read in clause 55(2) about the \u201Ctaking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of\u2014\u201D the Fisheries Act or the Marine Farming Act, or \u201Cthe registration of a fish farmer \u2026\u201D. The reference to \u201Cfish farmer\u201D reminds me of the previous provision that looked at the giving of authority. First of all, the fish farmer has to go to the Ministry of Fisheries for that authority, but either a resource consent or a certificate of compliance is required before that farmer can continue. But one does not have to have either of those things to be a fish farmer, if one has a customary rights order. One does not have to have a certificate of compliance or a resource consent, if one has a customary rights order. I would have thought that was a double standard. Given that, largely, it will be M\u0101ori who are customary rights holders, compared with anybody else, I definitely see that as a double standard and as the creating of an advantage for one group of persons over others who are required to go through the resource consent or compliance certificate process to be registered farmers as identified under Part 3. So we keep going back to the registration of fish farmers under Part 3. I am just reiterating the parameters by which fish farmers are established. I think it is absolutely amazing that we do have that double standard, and that someone with a customary rights order can become a fish farmer without having a certificate of compliance or resource consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EPerhaps the Minister would like to take a call to clarify the situation in regard to that, and whether it is actually appropriate. He is obviously declining to comment on that one. I think it is a significant issue, and if I had had time when debating the previous part, I would have gone into it more fully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI just bring members back to the registration of fish farmers, as identified in Part 3, and ask people to think about the preference in law that is being provided here for customary rights holders, who will be predominantly M\u0101ori\u2014I cannot think of any instance that the case might be otherwise. They do not need a resource consent or a compliance certificate, if they have a customary rights order. In my view, that is absolutely atrocious. The same parameters should apply to all, regardless of the customary rights order situation. Of course, that is another little gift arising from the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and I am sure we will be confronted with more of these little gifts, which are absolutely atrocious. That is something we are appalled to see, and we will be seeing it throughout the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI will leave the Minister to respond, and perhaps to address some of the concerns I have raised in regard to the preference being provided for customary rights holders over registered fish farmers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb477bc67c4f436da82ab195a506081c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bbcf14bde0b44b858dbd32f3c1ca0761\u0022\u003EPart 4  Biosecurity Act 1993\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u00223e44092af7b84573b53762b4e32dc262\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e44092af7b84573b53762b4e32dc262\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E The Primary Production Committee examined Part 4, regarding the Biosecurity Act, and the effects that this reform legislation would have\u2014and rightly so\u2014on that particular Act. Part 4 is another part that will be divided into one of the seven separate pieces of legislation arising from this bill, and deals solely and specifically with those clauses making amendment to that Act, which was passed in 1993 under the then National Government. We see biosecurity in this industry as absolutely essential. Just as biosecurity is important in the commercial-fishing industry, it is important in aquaculture. We see it as no less important for land-based aquaculture than it is for sea-based aquaculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIn fact, it is interesting to discuss the regulations relating to land-based aquaculture, because submitters came to us to ask why they were facing regulations and legislation that compounded the compliance costs placed upon them. They said there was absolutely no need for it, so we asked the officials why it was so. People with aquaculture farms on land that were fenced off, that were not on property that one could call public space\u2014like the ocean\u2014but were on private property, asked why they faced so many regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EOfficials came back at us with two succinct arguments. One was the need for regulations to ensure that the policing of fisheries could be adequately carried out. By way of an example, an on-land aquaculture farm might produce p\u0101ua. If a land-based aquaculturist were found with p\u0101ua, he would need to have followed certain regulations to be able to prove that his p\u0101ua were grown on his farm for sale. He would need records of the profit of his business\u2014records of the seeding coming into the business, the enhancement in the business, and the on-selling of p\u0101ua on to the market. That is fair enough; it is around the whole compliance and policing area. That is one reason why those farmers have to be subject to regulations, and we accepted that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe other reason was with regard to biosecurity issues and the need for a degree of traceability. If there was a biosecurity scare, whether because of threats within New Zealand, amongst our own marine farms, or because of a biosecurity scare offshore, in our markets and relating to our particular produce, then it would be a very serious matter for the marine-farming industry, indeed. That is why we took quite seriously these particular clauses with regard to biosecurity, and we do so now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EClause 57 amends section 43 of the Biosecurity Act in relation to risk goods. That is to ensure that information can be required on the full range of fish-farming activities, in the event of a need to trace fish movements. So it is all about traceability. One can appreciate that smaller stock used for spawning can come on to a farm, and can then be on-grown\u2014transferred to another part of the farm, or to another farm owned by the same proprietor, or indeed, to another farm owned by a separate proprietor. It can then be on-sold to a licensed fish receiver, or directly into the market, as in the case with exporting. If a biosecurity fault is found in that overseas market, that product would need to be traced back through the licensed fish receiver, or the marketing arm, to the farm where it was on-grown, then back to where it was originally brought on as young stock. That is why the amendments to the Biosecurity Act are so important, and we acknowledge them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022269aa507a7544d32b22125ab896ca69c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002226d2dbc1322d42d09fca7da28580739d\u0022\u003E Part 5  Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e6ee09ab9d44f4ba9a529d140ef3d2d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to Part 5\u2014clauses 59 to 105B. Members will know that it is in eight subparts. This debate includes debate on schedules 3 and 4, if members wish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022572c4873bc6c4368b636baf0b159280e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022572c4873bc6c4368b636baf0b159280e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E We now come to the contentious part of the Aquaculture Reform Bill and why the National Party will oppose it. There was talk throughout the select committee process about unfinished business associated with the 1992 deed of settlement. I did what any responsible member of the select committee should have done: I sourced a copy of the deed of settlement and read it. That deed of settlement settled all commercial-fishing interests\u2014coastal, inshore, and offshore. There was no unfinished business in that document signed by M\u0101ori of the day as a full and final settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWe told officials and many other people that if there was some unfinished business in something as major as the deed of settlement, there would be a paper trail. We were assured that there would be a paper trail. The more we asked for it, the less available that paper trail was. There is no paper trail of this unfinished business. There is, in fact, no unfinished business. What we have here is folklore associated with M\u0101ori determining that they would not mind another bite of the cherry, and the Labour Government being silly enough to see it as a means of settling its embarrassment over the seabed and foreshore legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe Government kept saying to us that it was based on a Crown Law opinion. After weeks and weeks of demanding the Crown Law opinion\u2014in fact, I got the select committee members to the stage that they were prepared to go on strike and not do any more consideration of the legislation until we had received that vital Crown Law opinion\u2014we finally received it. I would like to describe it as five pages of waffle, but I can describe only the first two pages as waffle, because the next three pages of that all-important document are completely blanked out. That is the basis on which the Labour Government is giving up to 40 percent of future aquaculture space to M\u0101ori: a legal opinion from Crown Law, from one Mr Peter Andrew, that is so poor that the Minister is so embarrassed by it that he causes it to be presented to the select committee with three pages blanked out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe select committee did happen to receive some other quite interesting information, which appeared unannounced. It was not requested by the select committee, because we did not know that it existed. It was information collated by Gardiner and Parata, which I understand is a firm of consultants here in Wellington. It was dated 20 May 2002, and we were told that it was commissioned by Te Puni K\u014Dkiri. Gardiner and Parata went back amongst people it knew to be associated with the original negotiation of the deed of settlement, to ask whether there was any truth to the argument that there was unfinished business.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe first person it talked to was Phil Major, a senior adviser to the then Minister of Fisheries, the Hon Doug Kidd. It is worth noting that he currently works in Mr Sutton\u2019s office. Was aquaculture excluded from the deed of settlement? Mr Major\u2019s response was that he could not recall the matter being explicitly on the table. The firm then interviewed the Hon Doug Kidd and asked him whether aquaculture had been excluded. He said there would be no documentary trail, because his recall was that the matter had been raised briefly on one occasion, but that it was of no great substance. It then interviewed the Rt Hon Doug Graham. Similarly, he made the comment that aquaculture had not been on the table. It interviewed Denese H\u0113nare, who apparently was a negotiator with Bob M\u0101huta, and she was able to state quite categorically that she did not recall any substantive discussion, or any documentation being tabled, on aquaculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThey are only some of the people whom Gardiner and Parata interviewed. That clearly proves to me, and to anybody interested in the truth, that aquaculture was never on the table during the discussion of the 1992 settlement. Furthermore, anybody who reads the 1992 settlement will see that it was signed up to by M\u0101ori as a full and final settlement of the grievances associated with commercial fishing, yet 12 years later we are reinventing the wheel and recreating the grievance industry for generations to come. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Benson-Pope: \u201CShame on you for being involved in this legislation.\u201D I also say: \u201CShame on the Labour Party for being involved in this legislation, and shame on New Zealand First for being prepared to support this legislation, which is without foundation.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI would be prepared to accept this folklore of unfinished business, if anybody had presented any evidence at all of it to the select committee. At one stage the Hon Dover Samuels revealed to the committee that he had been one of the M\u0101ori negotiators. That was news, I think, to both the Labour members and the National members on the committee. He promised to table written documentation proving absolutely that aquaculture had been deliberately put to one side, but I tell Dover Samuels that, to date, I am still waiting for those papers. I guarantee that we will never receive them, because they do not exist. Folklore has developed around there being unfinished business; it is without foundation, but we are passing legislation that will gift to M\u0101ori up to 40 percent of aquaculture space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EEnough grievance has been associated with the Treaty of Waitangi. The National Party has a proud record of moving legislation through the House to put those grievances behind New Zealand. Yet, sadly, tonight we are reopening those grievances, and without justification. Anybody who has studied this legislation, as I have, will note that in the deed of settlement with Ng\u0101i Tahu we specifically gave them the right to have 10 percent of new aquaculture space by pre-emptive tender. It was not a gift, but they had the right to obtain 10 percent by that means. Why would Ng\u0101i Tahu have negotiated that right in the 1996 settlement, if they genuinely believed there was unfinished business? The truth is they knew that fisheries had been tidied up with the 1992 settlement. They took the opportunity of their own settlement to obtain that pre-emptive right, and I have no problem with that\u2014indeed, I congratulate them. But for anybody in this Chamber to argue that the matter was not totally dealt with by Doug Kidd and Doug Graham in 1992 is wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ELabour claims that the settlement was rushed. Yes, it was. There was a one-off opportunity associated with Brierley\u2019s selling down Sealord\u2019s. The settlement was then rushed through the House, and I accept that, but the Labour Party signed on to it. It saw it as a good way of settling M\u0101ori grievances associated with commercial fishing. Now, 14 years later, Labour members are flocking to the other side of the debate, in an effort to save their own embarrassment around the seabed and foreshore issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis is unprincipled legislation in gifting 40 percent of aquaculture space to M\u0101ori. I say that that is wrong and that this matter will cause problems with race relations for a long time to come. The Minister in the chair should stand and take the opportunity to present any documentation that shows that there was unfinished business. But I know he will not be able to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f991420ff7504e0c86cb5711aa224271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f991420ff7504e0c86cb5711aa224271\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The country now has an answer to the question of how long full and final settlement lasts. I used to say that it was probably a generation, but it is actually half a generation\u2014it is now 12 years. That is how long full and final settlement lasts in New Zealand. New Zealanders, as represented by the Crown, can negotiate in good faith, and achieve a full and final settlement. Then, 12 years later, it is renegotiated, and once again the taxpayer of New Zealand forks out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI can understand why the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, is not prepared to stand and defend this most important part of the bill. It is indefensible, because, as we have heard from the Hon David Carter, this entire part of the bill is based on a lie\u2014it is. The lie is that somehow when full and final settlement was negotiated in 1992, aquaculture was \u201Cunfinished business\u201D. Ministers of the Crown promised to produce proof of that. They promised that to Parliament, but could produce nothing. We just have to read the commentary on the bill to learn that it states: \u201CThe basis of the claim to the Tribunal was M\u0101ori concern\u201D\u2014members should note this well\u2014\u201Cover their ongoing access to coastal space to undertake marine farming \u2026\u201D. Where is the property right concern or question in that statement? Does that mean that any group in New Zealand can come along and say it has a concern about access to Doug Woolerton\u2019s farm or to Dover Samuels\u2019 motel? Would that mean that Parliament would meet under urgency and give them all 20 percent of the area? I do not think so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThat point proves something else about this Government and, sadly, about what is happening to this country. Our country, our legislation, and our policies are becoming riddled with race-based preferences that are available only to people of a certain skin colour and genetic origin. It does not matter how many times Helen Clark stands on a public platform or in this Chamber to pretend and say that a particular measure is based on need. This legislation gives the lie to that claim. There is only one thing that is driving the 20 percent reservation of the area for M\u0101ori, and that is race. It is not based on a property right claim or on the Treaty of Waitangi. It is simply based on a racial preference. What is the logic of a 20 percent reservation? With whom was the 20 percent negotiated? David Benson-Pope cannot stand and say that the Government went through a negotiation process for the 20 percent. I say that the figure was plucked out of the air. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWhat can New Zealanders assume about how long this measure will last as full and final? Will it be 12 years? Will it now be 10 years? It is clear that we have set up an incentive for one racial group in New Zealand just to bitch, whine, and complain to the Government, and for the Government to come along, offer it 20 percent, and ask whether that will keep it quiet. That is what this Government is doing to New Zealand. Is that the way to develop an industry? I do not see Doug Woolerton saying that dairy farmers should hand over 20 percent of their farms because there is concern over access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI was astonished to learn that New Zealand First was supporting legislation like this bill, which is race based. I can understand the Labour Party doing that, because it speaks with a forked tongue. But I thought that New Zealand First prided itself on there being one law for all New Zealanders and on not supporting race-based preferences. I know that David Benson-Pope is a useless Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c9f82517d2b40769f7af5e9e17e51e9\u0022\u003ELianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221219021c8c914ba18f1b9d63cf1eb268\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, when that member was a Minister, she would take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022488f1c188ccf461196fc14e4abe88f31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022488f1c188ccf461196fc14e4abe88f31\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This part could perhaps be best described as the part that points out the two parties: the gullible and the greedy. The gullible party is the Government of the day, the Labour Government, which has quite clearly decided that any old story that any group of M\u0101ori may like to bring along to it will be put on the table for consideration. Previous speakers have made it clear that as far as Parliament was concerned, this issue was dealt with in 1992, and was then subsequently handled by way of treaty settlement in 1996 and over a number of years since then, whereby treaty settlors were given the ability to pick up allocation. So the question is this: why are we here today to require that any new area set aside for marine farming be divided up in such a way that up to 40 percent of that new area is given to M\u0101ori? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EAnd let us be clear that the area is not given to just any M\u0101ori, because this is where the greedy party comes in. The allocation will be given to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. If any M\u0101ori in this country believes he or she will get some benefit from that trusteeship at some point down the line, then I say he or she will have a very, very long wait for that. There is little doubt that the recent fisheries settlement bill that was rushed through Parliament and passed by the Labour Government\u2014at the point where it had been bent over backwards by the old guard that runs the M\u0101ori Fisheries Commission\u2014left this country in a state whereby Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee is a group that sits between the beneficiary, the owner of the asset, and the administrators themselves. So to ensure that that old-guard group, known as the M\u0101ori Fisheries Commission, continued to have its little sinecure set aside for itself, the trustees have gone to the Government and asked it to give them a big chunk of the aquaculture industry, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe know that the system will be such that those in the group will keep the funds that may flow from these areas in their back pocket to pay their fees, and that the funds will go nowhere near the people who expect to benefit from the asset. Not only is it bad for New Zealand to have such a race-based allocation of asset going on but it is also bad for those individuals who think they will get something out of it. It is quite clear in this legislation that the value of the asset will be determined by the old group of seven\u2014the elite M\u0101ori who sit on the board of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee\u2014acting as the trustees, and that the company, acting as the trustee, will itself decide on how much of the benefit will be passed down the line. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThat leads us to the real point here. We have a bill that is supposed to settle an issue\u2014that is to settle something that Parliament understood was previously settled\u2014but that will create nothing but grievance further down the track. At the time of the passing of the Maori Fisheries Bill, I predicted that before too long those who were supposed to benefit from it would come back to Parliament and say: \u201CHelp, look what you\u2019ve done to us. We need to be got out of this.\u201D And here is another lot. This is a bill that will simply see grievance further embedded into M\u0101ori culture. This will not be an allocation that lifts people out of the sort of economic deprivation we see in so many parts of the country and provides new opportunities for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u00225ce10172a837459390a1cfa9501725ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ce10172a837459390a1cfa9501725ad\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E This reminds me of what happened in the Primary Production Committee, when those members were rushing around trying to find evidence that something had gone on. Somebody had said something. I want to bring people\u2019s attention to the fact that the purpose of Part 5 is to \u201Cprovide a full and final settlement of M\u0101ori claims to commercial aquaculture\u201D. [Interruption] Well, that does not actually matter very much, because I understand that the Government has pre-empted claims. [Interruption] Is that not so? That is what it looks like to me. I did not hear Government members get excited in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220704790324604f4b88713b2f76c86267\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: They never did any work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232e841b76440494f94e33ec52c41d6e2\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I thought this was a Government bill. Somebody must have done some work somewhere. But let us not get carried away. The boys and girls are having so much fun getting excited about nothing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EThe fact is that 20 percent of the area has been set down to go to M\u0101ori interests. It is just 20 percent of an increased space in the ocean\u2014not costed by anybody; it is just a little extra. It is not as though there is not enough ocean or anything like that, or that it is being robbed off anybody or anything\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022029027bf30a64c5bac34c21d6312491c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t be naive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022565aa16671ff402e9781e05fd2e36997\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: I am not naive. What is naive here is to say that the 20 percent is coming off the present players, or that it is coming out of somebody\u2019s backyard. This is new space that we are talking about, and there is plenty of ocean. I think that a perfectly sensible thing to do is to allocate a little more space at the beginning of the Act in order to make sure that things are tidied up early in the piece. But our friends in the National Party and in ACT cannot come to grips with something that forestalls a fight. They cannot come to grips with anything that staves off anger, or anything like that. They want to have a fight, and believe they have not won anything or done anything unless there is a fight. We in New Zealand First say that the Government of the day, whose bill this is\u2014it is not our bill\u2014has decided to put that 20 percent in. It is a 20 percent allocation of freshwater space, and we say we agree with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00224c973393f3d8460d9d0c3d37c95ecfc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c973393f3d8460d9d0c3d37c95ecfc9\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Is it not hysterical that here we have an amendment to the Foreshore and Seabed Act only 19 days after it was passed in this Parliament? It is only 13 days since that Act received the royal assent and the Government is putting in a Supplementary Order Paper amending the Foreshore and Seabed Act, using the Aquaculture Reform Bill as its little tool. It is just another example of this Government\u2019s use and abuse of parliamentary procedure, of the democracy we have in this country, to make the changes it wants to make to legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Foreshore and Seabed Act is a travesty. It is an act of aggression. Thousands of New Zealanders recognised that travesty and fought so hard to prevent the bill from turning into an Act. We all know that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is a moral mistake. It takes from one section of our society the right to go to court to have its property interests investigated and clarified. New Zealanders are horrified at the theft of access to justice by this Government through the Foreshore and Seabed Act. We all know that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is an ethical mistake. A group of citizens went to court and they won their case. The Government lost. The Government\u2019s response to its loss was to abuse its power as a lawmaking institution, claim absolute parliamentary sovereignty, and change the law to suit its failed legal argument. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBut here is the first of, no doubt, a long series of examples of the miserable, practical mistakes that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is. The Government\u2019s indecent haste to pass this legislation has meant that it has mistakenly confiscated millions of dollars worth of property from local authorities\u2014property like Britomart, Wellington Airport, the Viaduct Basin, and Victoria Park. That land is now owned by central government because of a stupid mistake made by the Government and New Zealand First. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EHow terrible for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen! He made a multimillion-dollar mistake. He went to hui across the country and told M\u0101ori that they did not like the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because they did not understand it. Here we now have it. We know who did not understand that bill. Michael Cullen did not understand it, and in not understanding it he has made a multimillion-dollar mistake that he is now trying to fix up through a cynical quick-fix solution that will cover his embarrassment about his mistake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis issue, which is addressed in a Supplementary Order Paper, should have been sorted out at the select committee, but the Government and New Zealand First refused to allow the select committee enough time to deal with the issues in the bill and try to discover these sorts of stupid mistakes. They refused the requests from hundreds of submitters for the opportunity to be heard. Those submitters may well have identified mistakes that may yet be the subject of sneaky little quick fixes like this Supplementary Order Paper on the Aquaculture Reform Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EEven the officials who had to work late into the night in order to get the Foreshore and Seabed Bill ready cannot be held responsible for this mistake. The Government\u2019s indecent haste has meant that the select committee did not have enough time even to talk about possible changes to the bill and report back to the community in a way that respected the seriousness of the consequences of the legislation. The Government was in a massive rush to pass the foreshore and seabed legislation before Christmas and, in doing so, it has made a multimillion-dollar mistake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Green Party recognises the need to remedy that mistake\u2014land wrongly confiscated from local government. It is not without considerable irony that I note that the Government is going to such extraordinarily sneaky lengths to return this wrongly confiscated land to its rightful owners\u2014the local councils and the people of this country. Of course, the sole purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was to confiscate only M\u0101ori land, not land that belonged to local councils. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Greens recognise that the Supplementary Order Paper is a cynical manoeuvre by the Government to fix this one mistake at this time in this flawed process. Without doubt there will be further stupid mistakes discovered in the Foreshore and Seabed Act that will have to be remedied. I say to the Government that it should fess up that the whole Foreshore and Seabed Act was one huge, dumb, unjust mistake. It should fess up that it should never have happened and that the Act will cause only more problems, be more divisive, endanger the ecological security of our coast, and further alienate mana whenua in their own country. I tell the Government to fess up and fix the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022e181876a0f30466b8ea7ae7b1144087c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e181876a0f30466b8ea7ae7b1144087c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E What is so important about this debate on Part 5 is that New Zealanders have learnt that the only two parties in this Parliament that can be relied upon to bring an end to the treaty grievance industry are the National and ACT parties. I find it particularly extraordinary that New Zealand First, which campaigned on ending the grievance industry, would vote for Part 5, which will result in hundreds of millions of dollars of resource being handed over. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1fea009781446819d385eb18980d6de\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton\u003C/span\u003E: A bit of extra water.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b8e288553504b1bbfcdb38e56b209c3\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Doug Woolerton that people in Hamilton may not understand what aquaculture means, but that we in Nelson and Marlborough do. This part is as good as writing out a cheque to M\u0101oridom for $200 million or $300 million or more. That the young member Darren Hughes does not give a hoot about handing away public resource solely on the basis of race is one reason why those members opposite will lose their seats at the next general election. It is so interesting to reflect back on the 1992 fisheries settlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6a6cdfae3bf4a7580a90a98b3e581ba\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Were you there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4c017a5fb9944ff8bc0fd75cfc70cff\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I have looked at the Hansard. As my colleague David Carter quite properly asked, when was it ever stated back in 1992 that aquaculture was unfinished business? Who said that? Did Winston Peters ask in 1992 about aquaculture? No, he did not. Did any member of the Labour Party ask in 1992 about aquaculture? Did Rick Barker\u2014who is over-excited, and who knows that he is wrong, that he is further in the treaty grievance industry, and that this is unprincipled legislation based solely on dishing out public resources on the basis of race\u2014or any other Labour member say at the time of the settlement that aquaculture was unfinished business? I have looked through every single page of the Hansard, and not one member of the House said anywhere that there was a further issue with regard to commercial fishing and aquaculture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022042e8dc6acb1473e8a5ed71421d5a322\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: You voted for a 20 percent threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022082ae3a169f1407099404f5793e0a1c5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I tell members to hang on for a second. The New Zealand First member Jim Peters campaigned at the last election on ending the grievance industry. The member was going to end it. That has to be the biggest have ever. Let me tell members how it will work. One of my constituents whom I met at the weekend has worked in the aquaculture industry for 30 years. He is a good Kiwi battler. He is one of the pioneers of that industry. He has created an industry that creates hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth for our country. We are saying to that 55-year-old Nelsonian: \u201CSorry bud, you missed out. Your skin is the wrong colour. Because you are not M\u0101ori, you will be treated as a second-class citizen when it comes to allocating aquaculture space.\u201D I say to Mr Benson-Pope that that is wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c09a35462c940e1bcc0a087ec9d2bca\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a158db3c6724916ab9746078ea1e43d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister says \u2018No\u201D. Let us look at what Part 5 states. The Minister in the chair is saying that M\u0101ori will get access to that aquaculture space due to their having preferential treatment over anybody else. What is it about Labour members who believe that, somehow, M\u0101ori are inferior? They are New Zealanders like everybody else. They have the same right to go to their regional council to apply for aquaculture space, so why, in this part, are we giving them additional rights? Why will they automatically get 20 percent of the space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aec5e22edcbe453aa9deb4428916a443\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton\u003C/span\u003E: You set a precedent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ec3af7493814b24b8d509e664bb2106\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Woolerton, the member from Hamilton\u2014who campaigned on ending treaty grievances, and who will allocate another $200 million to the M\u0101ori bureaucracy\u2014and to those in New Zealand First that every New Zealander now knows that New Zealand First members cannot be relied upon. There will be no full and final settlements while this sort of policy is adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00223e3897d29cd7436f88b43d5aafc87eb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e3897d29cd7436f88b43d5aafc87eb8\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on the amendment to clause 105B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, which corrects an anomaly in section 18 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As the member before me has mentioned, that legislation was rushed through Parliament several weeks ago. Many of us who opposed that legislation\u2014not so much because of its content but because of the indecent haste with which it was being put through Parliament\u2014warned the Government that there could be unforeseen mistakes in it. In fact, in my minority report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill I mentioned the fact that Local Government New Zealand might be quite concerned about some of the unforeseen issues that would arise. No one would have thought there would be as large an unforeseen issue as this, which would be the biggest land-grab ever. The problems with the treaty issues and the confiscations in the 1800s pale into insignificance when it comes to central government taking most of downtown Wellington and prime pieces of real estate in my home city of Tauranga. There would be some land affected in Auckland, as well. I raised an issue in my minority report about whether the Government could make compensation for the land it took. Well, Dr Cullen\u2019s huge surplus would disappear overnight if he were to pay compensation for that land-grab off local government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI have an image in my mind of Winston Peters, towards the end of the debate on that legislation, standing up and saying that New Zealand First had fixed the legislation and had taken care of it all. A number of the New Zealand First members stood up, one after another, and said they had done a great job of fixing the problems for New Zealand. I said to them at the time that if you want to claim credit for having fixed the legislation, you must also take responsibility if you have not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b1ac136e0154393a77368e40e408ec9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member should not bring the Chair into the debate; he should use members\u2019 full names.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ca29e3d35e46d39bf35aed86093c06\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise; I will not bring you into it. I said that if the New Zealand First members were going to claim credit for having fixed that legislation, they would also have to take responsibility for any mistakes that appeared. Here one does appear, and it is a huge, huge mistake. Of course it has to be fixed, and of course we cannot blame the officials who worked so hard on that legislation, but it is such an illustration of how we get things wrong when we rush things through under urgency, without having a proper process for submitters to come and share their wisdom with us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe wonderful thing about the parliamentary process is that when submitters come and share their views, they bring great wisdom to the table. They see things that, perhaps, we do not see here in Wellington when we look at legislation. I am sure that someone from Local Government New Zealand would have seen that glaring error and pointed it out to us, had we had the opportunity over the summer to let people look at a draft of the bill before we then come back to it and pass it early next year. So it is unfortunate that we have made that huge mistake. I believe the people of Tauranga will be very, very concerned about what their local member has done in contributing to that and conspiring with the Government to take away much of The Strand and some other very valuable pieces of real estate in Tauranga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future will be very happy to step up tonight and give our support to the Government, in order for it to be able to make that alteration and correct the error.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022087487faaaf9434ab40736ed4a58b38d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022087487faaaf9434ab40736ed4a58b38d\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Part 5 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill has disgraceful provisions that bluntly appeal to race prejudice and appease threats, as Mr Walton acknowledged. What was it he said\u2014\u201Chead off trouble before it arises\u201D? The provisions bluntly admit that they have nothing to do with the treaty. The clauses simply state that they relate to M\u0101ori commercial aquaculture claims settlements. There is nothing to do with the treaty in the heading, and next to nothing to do with it in the clauses. Clause 61, \u201CSettlement of claims\u201D, applies to all claims by M\u0101ori in respect of commercial aquaculture activities, whether they are founded on rights arising in common law, the Treaty of Waitangi, or otherwise. Well, they are otherwise founded, because there is nothing in the treaty that justifies M\u0101ori claiming 20 percent\u2014or any part\u2014of aquaculture. Aquaculture was not even capable of ownership until a few years ago. Aquaculture is simply not capable of ownership until one can delineate and designate the areas that will be subject to it. It was not considered that we farmed the sea in that way. The notion that in some way the promise in the treaty of property rights and equal rights has been, or could have been, breached in relation to aquaculture is simply fanciful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EHaving noted the excellent speeches that have covered the general principles, I want to look at some specific provisions. Clause 63A states that the space to be allocated to M\u0101ori must be of an economic size. It goes on to state under subclause (2): \u201CHowever, if it is not possible for a regional council to comply with \u2026 [that], the regional council must identify new space that is of an economic size even though the new space is not representative.\u201D That will tie up local authorities, iwi\u2014or the iwi trustee\u2014and other claimants before the courts for years. Councils are directed to find that 20 percent, and to allocate it as representative of all the new space, including a representative portion of amounts that are subject to reservations, and then they are told that the space must be of an economic size. If a space is not of an economic size even though it is representative, then councils must identify a new space that comprises a single area. Can members just imagine lawyers crawling over this legislation? It is all so subjective that anyone who wants to get a negotiating advantage will be able to tie this legislation up in court for as long as he or she wishes. Once again, we will see our aquaculture tied up, not because there is any justified claim but simply because of the delay in the procedure that this bill consciously sets out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIt gets worse than that. When we look at allocations in respect of staged developments and harbours, under clause 63B(1)(b) we see: \u201C\u2026 that space must be representative of the new space available at each stage of the staged development or harbour;\u201D. That 20 percent will obviously produce uneconomic areas. Some of the stages will be suitable for only one farm, yet the space has to be given. We then go on to see that by the year 2014 the Government is supposed to have provided a value that is the equivalent of 20 percent of the existing space. The year 2014 is 10 years from now, yet this process is expected to be still going on then. I believe that the National Party and the ACT party should make a pledge right now that the moment they get into power they will cancel the process, and that if there is any space that has not been allocated at that stage, all bets are off. It is a windfall in any event, but there is no part of this racist provision that would survive longer than 60 days after the coming into power of an ACT and National Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ECertainly, from ACT\u2019s perspective, we would vote to terminate a piece of racist theft like this the moment we had the ability to do so. It is quite possible to do so, because this legislation contemplates that the process will go on for years. Anyone who has been involved in this bill knows, and I am sure that the officials are well aware, that none of the space will be allocated before the courts have crawled over it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002200348b26b8514f2cac41275a9a6c92d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200348b26b8514f2cac41275a9a6c92d8\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to address directly Rodney Hide\u2019s question to the Committee tonight, which was: how long do members think this settlement will last with this Government? We know that treaty settlements with this Government\u2014full and final settlements\u2014last only a matter of years. My answer to Rodney Hide as to how long this treaty settlement will last is simply to say that if he would take today\u2019s Order Paper and flick through it, he will find that 32 bills are listed under Government Orders of the Day, and after those comes the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which has an aquaculture component.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a167b1653e5b4264be6dfdd757d2ca65000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002236f726080bcc4467bfd2de3e051291f5\u0022\u003ETuesday, 14 December 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022694ad5b7b6b74cd38190fbe1ece7468a\u0022\u003E(continued on Wednesday, 15 December 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002263441fa67ce842fcb07003838318e6cc\u0022\u003EAquaculture Reform Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fb76b95a98b44c8cbc2e9fbdf0db908c\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f7a82e02ae9b4fe497bd03b1cf235186\u0022\u003EPart 5  Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6c25db14ddb4f40b64b37c75ab6a4da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6c25db14ddb4f40b64b37c75ab6a4da\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E The Committee was asked when this full and final settlement will come round to bite us again\u2014because, of course, the 1992 fisheries settlement is only just over 12 years old, yet we are readdressing it. I pointed to the Government orders of the day listed under \u201CBusiness before the House\u201D on yesterday\u2019s Order Paper to answer that very question of when the settlement will come back to us. I pointed to the list of bills on the Order Paper, running through Nos 1 to 15, 16 to 31, and 32 to 35. Just after No. 35 is the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. If members turn to clauses 118 and 119 of that bill, they will see that those clauses deal with an aquaculture settlement specifically with the iwi of Ng\u0101ti Awa. So there we go. In the next few months that bill will pass through Parliament, and it will deal with aquaculture space specifically. So this settlement that gives 20 percent of existing aquaculture space to M\u0101ori and up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space to M\u0101ori will come round again in a matter of months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhat does that bill state? It states that the deed of settlement will include a provision that when the Minister of Conservation offers up by public tender any part of the marine coastal area\u2014specifically, part of the \u014Chiwa Harbour\u2014Ng\u0101ti Awa will have a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of that coastal space for aquaculture. Interestingly enough, this is not the first time there has been a specific aquaculture settlement. The Ng\u0101 Rauru K\u012Btahi in Taranaki has the right, under its October 2003 settlement, to participate in preferential tendering for aquaculture space. Ng\u0101ti Ruanui in Taranaki signed a deed of settlement in 2001 that gave it a preferential right for aquaculture. Ng\u0101ti Tama of Taranaki, under its settlement of November 2001, has a preferential right to buy at the tender price 10 percent of the allocated marine space. Lastly, the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998 specifically granted to that iwi a preferential purchasing right of 10 percent of the allocated space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo there we have five iwi that have gone to the Government of the day\u2014one to the previous National Government and four to the Labour Government\u2014and argued on merit that there is a settlement to be made. The Government of the day has accepted on merit that the claim was fair, and it has addressed the claim with a preferential right to purchase aquaculture space. That has happened five times on a case by case basis on merit, without affecting any other marine farmer in the country, and each time there has been a deed of settlement to point to. There is nothing wrong with that, but a blanket give-away of 20 percent of aquaculture space right across the country, as this part attests to, regardless of any involvement in the marine area, is unjustified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022a10bfe7d0123447c891a4c7b1821ac21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a10bfe7d0123447c891a4c7b1821ac21\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E It would be useful if I made some comments, I think, both in respect of the misinformation the Committee has just heard and in relation to some of the comments made last night. I will begin by addressing the issue of the genesis of this\u2014I think\u2014very sensible and very progressive settlement. It is most important that I quote, for the benefit of the Committee, from the Wai 953 report. It states: \u201CHe\u201D\u2014Doug Kidd\u2014\u201Cthought that the Treasury had wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system, but he\u201D\u2014Doug Kidd\u2014\u201Chad personally forbidden Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions on the deed of settlement since it would confuse an already complex set of negotiations.\u201D So for members of the National Party to stand here and say that that matter has been dealt with is typical of the sort of claptrap we hear repeatedly from that party. I thank New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens for supporting a really sensible pathway forward. Like the industry and like local government, this Government is concerned about good outcomes and making progress, and not about wheeling out the same old boring, racist nonsense as that Opposition party constantly does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233f6bd5af8d54d1bb590cd4b34c7d09b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member cannot insinuate that a member or a party is racist. I ask the member to stand and withdraw that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a88a448db03443f38e8c1a562a863e85\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u002234b9f49462a34f82a9ed59631e61ed20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234b9f49462a34f82a9ed59631e61ed20\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The 20 percent allocation of aquaculture space to M\u0101ori is a very strange course of action for the Government to take. I basically support the allocation, but the Government seems to have gone about it in a very odd way. The National Party talks about unfinished business. I accept that there is some question about that, but I do not really want to visit that question. What the Government is trying to do right now is to legislate for a full and final settlement. Crown Law opinion states that the Crown does have the right to do so, but my reading of it is that the Treaty of Waitangi settlements must be negotiated. There has not even been consultation with iwi M\u0101ori on this settlement. How can the Government legislate for a settlement when it has not even consulted with the people it is settling with? The 1992 deed of settlement stated that M\u0101ori were entitled to 20 percent of all new species as those species were admitted to the quota management system. Green-lipped mussels and, I understand, oysters are not part of the quota management system, so they are not triggers for entering into a Treaty of Waitangi settlement either. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that the Government is creating a potential loophole. On the one hand it says that this is a full and final settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi claim, but on the other hand it leaves the door open for M\u0101ori to say it is very nice to have the 20 percent, for which they thank us very much, but that now they will go ahead with their treaty negotiations\u2014and we would support them in doing that. Another problem\u2014a practical problem\u2014that this legislation brings up is the idea that the 20 percent of space allocated to M\u0101ori will be \u201Crepresentative space\u201D. How does one actually identify what representative space is? It is not just 20 percent of an area. Water space actually varies in much the same way as land does: there is high country, which is not very productive, and there are lowlands, which are very productive. So it is not simply a matter of saying M\u0101ori can have a particular space, and that it is equal to a space that has already been taken. It is probable that the space that has already been taken by existing marine farmers will be the best space that was available, so anything that is given to M\u0101ori is likely to be less than average. So how do we find the space? It is a real practical problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe legislation states that M\u0101ori are to get 20 percent of all new space. On the surface, that seems straightforward enough, notwithstanding the productivity question. I have heard some very odd comments from various people who say that that does not mean actually 20 percent; it means 40 percent. The question of 40 percent comes up only because the legislation states that from 1992\u2014the year of the deed of settlement\u2014until the present there has been existing space, and 20 percent of that is to go to M\u0101ori. If that space cannot be bought or obtained in some way by the Government and passed on to iwi M\u0101ori, then the amount has to be made up from new space. It could be that M\u0101ori will get up to 40 percent of the new space in order to make up for the 20 percent that the Government cannot give them from the existing space. It is a bit complicated, but at the end of the day, taking the existing space and the new space together, the amount is 20 percent, and not 40 percent. The amount is up to 40 percent of the new space, but not 40 percent of the overall space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EAnother question that has come up is the use of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd as the allocation body, using the model from the fisheries settlement. Almost without exception\u2014I think there was one exception\u2014the iwi groups that made submissions to the Primary Production Committee opposed the use of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. Now, we must be doing something right if everybody dislikes it. The problem was that we kept asking those groups who they did want to be the allocation group if they did not want Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee, and their answer was that they wanted to negotiate directly with the Crown. Obviously, when there are multiple groups all around the country, it simply will not work like that. So, for better or for worse, we have decided that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee is the organisation with the skills to do the job. At one level, I do accept the M\u0101ori argument that the Government is just passing off a complex problem to another group, and saying to M\u0101ori that it is their problem, and that they should get on and deal with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThere have also been questions raised about who gets the allocated space in a mixed area. Let us say a piece of foreshore has open water and a harbour, and there are two adjoining iwi, one having the rohe of the open water and one having the rohe of the harbour. If the open water is not suitable for aquaculture, then basically that is just tough bikkies for that particular iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022912117682f5b477db2f01a1d8c2972b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022912117682f5b477db2f01a1d8c2972b3\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Part 5, which members are speaking to, sets out the procedures so that we may have clarity as to how to go about the allocation of aquaculture space\u2014not only members here in Parliament, but also regional councils, M\u0101ori, and iwi. I think that this is a very good part, because it sets out the procedures. The Committee has become bogged down in some of its discussion as to whether it should even start on the procedures, but once it has moved past that initial question there still need to be clear outlines on how things should take place. In other words, I note that this part answers the question of how the settlement is to take place for iwi and M\u0101ori. As somebody has just tried to explain, the amount that is set aside for M\u0101ori is 20 percent of all the space in aquaculture management areas. That is done in two stages. There is a stage from 21 September 1992 through until today\u2014the existing farms, or space that will be converted into aquaculture management areas\u2014and then there is everything from the passing of this legislation. Overall, this bill makes it clear that iwi will be settled with no more than 20 percent of that available space. The amount is not 40 percent of the space, as someone correctly pointed out. The space must be representative space. It has to be economic in size for people to use, and it has to have not less than average productivity, as I recall some of the clauses point out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe space will go to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee to be held by that body as trustee, and Part 5 lays out the procedures that relate to the passing over of that space to M\u0101ori. With regard to the assets that some people referred to when they said that the trustee would receive all the money and would run away with it, that type of talk is not supported by Part 5. In fact, what is being transferred is just space, and there are no financial possibilities of others misusing or abusing space in itself, or of people taking the money, going elsewhere, or holding up progress for a long period of time. There is no money involved, and I think it is very important to understand that. The roles of the trustees, the authority that is set out for them, and their ability to do things is set out in Part 5. There is a dispute resolution process set up\u2014going right through to the High Court, if need be\u2014so that no one can be in any doubt. I believe that this part sets out a good due process, so that no one can misunderstand the intention and the conclusions that are desired for aquaculture to get started into a full thrusting sense from the passing of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThere are other harbours that have been referred to in the bill. We have looked at them. As a party, United Future will certainly vote for clause 105B, which amends the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and also for the amendment to that clause that has been tabled in Supplementary Order Paper 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. We, as a party, feel that this is good legislation. It will really help M\u0101ori people to get settled, and with them being settled, the rest of the industry will therefore settle down and get on with practising aquaculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e34f35811c8d4c279186ca0a61383bf7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e34f35811c8d4c279186ca0a61383bf7\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is interesting, in view of the speeches made last night and at the beginning of the day by National Party members, that there seems to be a lack of understanding as to why the 20 percent threshold is there. It is certainly not a misunderstanding on the part of the industry. Yesterday morning\u2019s New Zealand Herald, with regard to the very matters that we are looking at in Part 5, stated: \u201CThe industry has never been opposed to the fisheries issues of the treaty settlement.\u201D That is the exact view that I had confirmed for me by a major player in Northland on the weekend. And why is that? It is because in 1992 a threshold was set by the then National Government as to what would be a fair allocation of the fishery resource at that time. As I stated yesterday, so important was that at the time, that the then National Government shot the whole deed of settlement in its legislative form through in one sitting, as it were\u2014introduction, second reading, Committee stage, and third reading took place all at once. That shows how keen the Government, and particularly Dr Smith, were at that time to \u201Cprovide a full and final settlement\u201D, which is exactly the language of clause 59 in Part 5 of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo New Zealand First came to this, as I said yesterday, with an understanding of the 20 percent threshold established. Therefore, we took up the issue, as Mr Woolerton did in the Primary Production Committee, of providing for the allocation and management of aquaculture settlement assets. We found nothing incompatible with that, notwithstanding the fact that in 1992, Peters I and Peters W voted against the deed of settlement. Since then we have maintained major clarity as to issues concerning M\u0101ori and fishing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EHowever, the issue before the Committee is whether that will work. I want to bring to the Committee\u2019s attention the fact that there will not be a huge amount of space out there ready to be absorbed. In Northland, there are 149 farmers at present and, going through and taking the Minister and the Government at their word over the last 2\u00BD years, we have consulted widely. The industry\u2019s wish for 135 sites has been finally narrowed down to 19. When we go back and look at the actual space those 19 farms will use, it is very small. So there will not be a large amount of space out there, notwithstanding the fact that some operators or industry developers may want to go for some of the large farms such as we have seen in Akaroa, \u014Cp\u014Dtiki, and other places. But in general, if we take into account the criteria set out in this bill, define it, and work through it with regard to the local community, having regard to the requirements of the Resource Management Act, there is not a vast amount of space available. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo that 20 percent allocation for M\u0101ori will be a significant issue, because the space is very small, and it is additional space. I say again that in the thinking of the bill, the committee has done very well under the Hon David Carter in the previous part, in setting out the rights of those who at present hold consents or licences. Those rights have been upheld, as they were not in the original bill, and those people have security, virtually for life. There is nothing much more that one could expect, despite what was said yesterday by my friends on my left with regard to lifetime security. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo for the part of New Zealand First, we as a party with a great affinity with the M\u0101ori world are very conscious of what this can do and would do. It is not unfair, it is principled, and, most of all, it is based upon the National Government\u2019s mind in 1992 in setting that threshold. In concluding, may I say that I find it very strange that there is so much concern about our national assets by a party that willingly sold off Telecom and New Zealand Rail to the wider world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022b515ac1758cd4fb895c0bec9b8ce39cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b515ac1758cd4fb895c0bec9b8ce39cf\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to refer back to just a moment or two ago, before the last couple of speakers, to the Minister\u2019s outburst, and that is really all it could be described as. If in fact the Minister had some real justification, he would have stood in this Chamber and explained to the Committee and to the people listening to this debate why the Crown Law Office blanked out three pages of advice\u2014or what should have been advice\u2014that should have been put in front of this Committee. I ask the Minister to explain to the House why we got three blank pages of Crown Law on this issue, but I am perfectly certain that he will not do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EIn talking to Part 5, I believe that, without question, there should be an open-door policy to aquaculture in this country. We have a huge coastline, massive amounts of water available, and there should be an absolutely open-door policy. The policy that this Government is operating is a brown-door policy, because if the person is M\u0101ori, then that person gets special treatment. The people of this country are sick and tired of this racist nonsense. M\u0101ori are perfectly capable, and always have been perfectly capable, of running their own industries. Let us look at Ng\u0101i Tahu in the south, for example. They do not need special help or special attention, because they are more than capable, and have been extraordinarily successful. I suspect that what is happening is that Ng\u0101i Tahu and other M\u0101ori are laughing up their sleeves at this Government\u2019s naivety. They will be saying: \u201CIf they are prepared to give us 20 percent for nothing\u2014totally unjustified\u2014then we will take it.\u201D They treat this Government as the village idiot. They will keep on grabbing from the Government as long as the Government is silly enough to hand out this extra 20 percent. We know why it is being done. We know it is being done for votes, and to protect the hides of the Labour M\u0101ori caucus. It is payback for the foreshore and the seabed legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EBut I want to talk about the space that is to be allocated that must be of an economic size. I wonder whether any of the officials, or the Minister, could tell me what an economic size is, and how it will be determined. For if we look at this whole question of an economic size in terms of agriculture, for example, an economic size of a farm in Southland might be 400 acres. The same carrying capacity in the high country of the North Island or South Island might need to be 40,000 acres to carry the same amount of stock. Really, this is what we are talking about. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EDid I hear some sort of utterance from a member of the Government? Those members do not know what they are talking about. The carrying capacity varies hugely from region to region, between bay and bay where the aquaculture might be sited. How on earth is an economic size to be determined by a bunch of officials, or indeed a regional council? It cannot be done. The way it is done is that people put their ropes into the water, and, after a period of time, work out that growth is not occurring quickly, or there are too many ropes, or they need extra size. So in many areas, the aquaculture areas might be too small to allocate 20 percent extra, because the economy of scale to that marine farm will be lost if they lose that extra 20 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThis is a practical, common-sense situation that I personally have experienced, and the farming community has experienced. The same concepts can be applied to aquaculture and, essentially, the same principles apply. It is possible to get water that is full of nutrients and, like the Southland plains, is highly fertile and can sustain a high carrying capacity. What happens in open water, or in another bay where there is little or no nutrient by comparison, is that the size will have to be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled sometimes, to achieve the same carrying capacity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcdcbae0684744f9879595c2c81daca3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcdcbae0684744f9879595c2c81daca3\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E I want to go back, in Part 5, to the issue of M\u0101ori settlement. When we talk to a lot of New Zealanders, and we start talking about contemporary claims for M\u0101ori, it sends a shudder down their spines. Most people have signed up to the fact that they want to settle past grievances, but contemporary claims make them feel that the treaty industry is never going to end. This is a very good example of the reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI want to read the deed of settlement between Her Majesty the Queen and M\u0101ori from 1992 for the fisheries settlement, and this is the permanent settlement of commercial fishing rights and interest. Under the treaty, this settlement was supposed to actually answer the question of past grievance about M\u0101ori\u2019s ability to have free access to their traditional grounds for collecting seafood and for fishing. It states: \u201CM\u0101ori agree that this settlement deed, and the settlement it evidences, shall satisfy all claims\u201D\u2014all claims\u2014\u201Ccurrent and future in respect of, and shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of M\u0101ori whether in respect to\u201D\u2014and members should listen to this bit\u2014\u201C(c) coastal or inland fisheries, including any commercial aspects of traditional fishing rights and interests, whether arising by statute, common law, including customary law and aboriginal title, the Treaty of Waitangi, or otherwise, and whether or not such rights or interests shall be the subject of recommendations or adjudication by the courts or the Waitangi Tribunal.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThis was the deed of settlement that we are now relitigating with aquaculture. I want to tell the Minister that the Hon Doug Kidd, who was the member for Marlborough, is clear that aquaculture is actually part of this settlement deed. But here, under the Aquaculture Reform Bill, what do we have? We have Crown Law Office advice from 26 January 1996 looking at whether there was any allocation of aquaculture tenures and coastal consents. It could not find any evidence that this extended to aquaculture. This is Crown Law Office advice. It did not extend to aquaculture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders are getting really tired of the continual handouts, when one has M\u0101ori on the other side of the fence saying: \u201CWe don\u2019t accept this. There is no deed of settlement.\u201D We heard speeches in this Chamber last night, and today we will hear more, I am sure, saying that M\u0101ori do not acknowledge this action. They are being handed out 20 percent. They do not acknowledge it. There is no deed of settlement. They did not ask for it. They much prefer to have case-by-case negotiated claims, and they do not want this. So New Zealanders are paying for 20 percent of aquaculture management areas when they have already had 10 percent of the total allowable catch, 50 percent of Sealord\u2019s, and 20 percent of new quota, which is what went to M\u0101ori under the deed of settlement in 1992 under the Fisheries Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EHow long does it go on for, and how much more will there be? M\u0101ori are not happy with this. This Government is handing out this 20 percent space\u2014basically it has done a deal over the foreshore and seabed legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI was surprised by New Zealand First last night. Doug Woolerton was saying that New Zealand First is supporting this because it will forestall a fight. I do not think so at all. I do not think it will forestall anything. We are still going to see difficulties about this. In the Marlborough Sounds\u2014the area that I represent\u201430 percent of marine farms are already owned by M\u0101ori. Everyone wants to see everybody in this country being able to do well, advance themselves, and have access to industries that will be for the betterment of this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1397e5482d64241a3e020e7b84ca90e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1397e5482d64241a3e020e7b84ca90e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6c3e09810a34b7185be357a1db5d119\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6c3e09810a34b7185be357a1db5d119\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to deal with the misinformation that was given to the Committee earlier by the Minister of Fisheries, in his rabid outburst, when he suggested that when Doug Kidd negotiated the 1992 settlement he deliberately took aquaculture off the agenda. That is absolutely untrue. I shall clarify for that Minister, if in fact he is mistaken\u2014but I doubt it\u2014that what Doug Kidd forbade further discussion on was a Treasury report that was around at the time that investigated whether aquaculture should come into the quota management system. Doug Kidd said that that notion was off the agenda and was not to be discussed. David Benson-Pope suggested to the Committee today that Doug Kidd\u2019s statement could be taken as his saying that aquaculture was not to be part of the discussion. What Doug Kidd said was that aquaculture coming into quota management was not a discussion topic on the agenda of the Government of the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI shall deal with whether aquaculture was part of the discussions associated with the deed of settlement. I refer to Gardiner and Parata\u2019s report commissioned by Te Puni K\u014Dkiri in 2002. Gardiner and Parata quite specifically asked the people involved in the 1992 settlement whether aquaculture had been excluded from the deed of settlement. I previously mentioned Mr Phil Major, a senior adviser to the Minister of Fisheries at the time; he said that he could not recall the matter being explicitly on the table during discussions between Ministers, negotiators, officials, or advisers. Doug Kidd also has confirmed to me that at no time was aquaculture seriously on the discussion trail. Hauraki Greenland, the manager of Te Puni K\u014Dkiri, said that although he had joined the discussion late in the process of the deed of settlement, he had no recollection of aquaculture being recorded. Belinda Clark, the manager of Te Puni K\u014Dkiri at the time, said quite specifically that Te Puni K\u014Dkiri had not been part of many of the meetings around the detail of the deed of settlement, but to her knowledge, from the meetings she had attended, the matter of aquaculture had not been raised. George Habib, an adviser to the negotiators, gave a very lengthy interview, but, to summarise, he quite specifically said that there had been no specific mention of aquaculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ESo it is a mistruth for the Minister to suggest to the Committee that aquaculture was taken off the table. That was not the case at all. It was simply that nobody bothered to raise the issue, because everybody involved in the process genuinely saw the deed of settlement as full and final settlement of commercial-fishing rights\u2014inshore, offshore, and coastal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI want to deal with another matter that the select committee spent a lot of time on, and that is what we got to call the patchwork quilt. That is the issue whereby the allocation of 20 percent of space to M\u0101ori\u2014in the case of new space, 40 percent\u2014may result in M\u0101ori getting a whole lot of space that, effectively, is useless to them. Mr Benson-Pope said in the House yesterday that the select committee had solved that problem. I assure the Minister that the select committee did not solve the problem. We went a long way towards alleviating the problem, but this legislation still has a mechanism whereby when a current aquaculturist successfully applies for a private plan change to extend space in order to create a new aquaculture management area adjacent to an area where he is operating aquaculture at the moment, M\u0101ori get 20 percent of it. That is wrong. It is wrong to ask the industry to go through all the costs associated with the creation of new areas, then to gift 20 percent of them to M\u0101ori. It is absolutely unprincipled. But what will happen is M\u0101ori will end up with 20 percent of perhaps 1 hectare of extension, and that will be of no use to them at all. If David Benson-Pope is so out of touch with his own portfolio that he thinks the select committee managed to solve that situation, he is absolutely wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis legislation will cause bitterness and grievance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4ed2c5a8cb944ab8dad9cf00fc6c4e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4ed2c5a8cb944ab8dad9cf00fc6c4e0\u0022\u003EDAVE HEREORA (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002218e4e154db934a478e172d005a60a8ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218e4e154db934a478e172d005a60a8ed\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E Here is the bottom line. The 1992 fisheries settlement went through negotiation and discussion, a deed was signed, the assets were put into Te Ohu Kai Moana over a period of 12 years, the issues about allocation were resolved, and this year the Maori Fisheries Bill was passed, giving power for that allocation to happen. With this aquaculture treaty settlement, which the Minister of Fisheries thinks is full and final, there has been no negotiation. The Minister cannot table any deed of settlement. Goodness knows how long Te Ohu Kai Moana will be arguing and chasing its tail, going round and round in circles in order to get an allocation acceptable to anyone, and here we have legislation that will pass aquaculture space into M\u0101ori ownership!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori have said themselves that they do not accept this as a settlement. That is what they have told us. They have said that no one negotiated with them, no one signed a deed of settlement with them. They reject this as a settlement. That tells us only one thing, and that is that the Indians are coming over the hill again\u2014that there will be another claim on aquaculture space. So why does the Minister not admit to this House that Part 5, \u201CMaori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement\u201D, is simply a horse-trading deal with M\u0101ori, whereby if the Government throws M\u0101ori 20 percent of aquaculture space, M\u0101ori will be satisfied over the seabed and foreshore deal? That is what this is all about, and it has satisfied no one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori came to the select committee quite concerned. They were worried that they would end up with two worthless things. One was aquaculture space designated to them by regional councils that they never would have chosen for themselves, and the second was aquaculture space that was so small and insignificant\u2014for example, 20 percent of a development of 5 hectares, which would give them 1 hectare\u2014it was of no use or value to them whatsoever. They could not understand why the Government did not negotiate with them over this. We set them right and the lights went on. \u201CAh!\u201D, they said, \u201CThis is to buy our silence.\u201D Even the dim light of Doug Woolerton went on. He went: \u201CAh, I see now. This is a deal. We\u2019re tossing M\u0101ori 20 percent of aquaculture space, and they\u2019re to shut up about the seabed and foreshore legislation. The Government is trying to buy them off.\u201D When the lights went on in M\u0101oridom and the dim light of Doug Woolerton shimmered, everyone understood what was going on. Part 5 talks about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI can tell members that M\u0101ori submitters, and the member from Gisborne will concede this, were concerned that there was no negotiation, no settlement, and they are wondering whether they should come back for more. I am intrigued that this particular so-called treaty settlement\u2014I shall call it a pseudo - treaty settlement\u2014is post-1992. M\u0101ori can still make claims pre-1992. Here is a question for the Minister: if M\u0101ori can make claims pre-1992, and this settlement is post-1992, what did New Zealanders do to M\u0101ori after 1992 that means they deserve 20 percent of aquaculture space? What have we done in the last 14 years\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ea416ec89364c6fb7bc088bcb031aca\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Go to a Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284a6af6ce085444491ce7958ebeddfb6\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Is that what it was? What have we done in the last 12 to 14 years that means for some reason we owe M\u0101ori 20 percent of aquaculture space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u002232416a583e674340b1617ad3ad77514d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232416a583e674340b1617ad3ad77514d\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002223eb624c05564c3bb65030e3773f1983\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223eb624c05564c3bb65030e3773f1983\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, I thank you for the call, because I have been going through the documents presented to the Primary Production Committee, and I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Labour Party members whether they have respect for Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan and his word. I am not getting an answer to my question, so I want to put on the record that I have huge respect for Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan and his word.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI shall quote Sir T\u012Bpene\u2019s answer when he was asked to recall the 1992 settlement and the discussions that occurred at that time, and to answer the huge question of whether aquaculture had been on the agenda or off the agenda. The interview was undertaken at the request of Te Puni K\u014Dkiri, and the result was presented to that ministry in May 2002 by Gardiner and Parata. That firm had asked Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan a question that is fundamental to this gifting of aquaculture space to M\u0101ori. The question simply was whether aquaculture had been excluded from the deed of settlement. Sir T\u012Bpene responded: \u201CThe settlement was about commercial fisheries rights. Such rights include aquaculture.\u201D Nothing could be clearer in the mind of Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, shakes his head. Let him be assured that I am not misquoting the information in front of me. That is a direct quote of what Sir T\u012Bpene said to the interviewing firm, Gardiner and Parata, so I doubt whether it is incorrect. Nothing could be clearer: the 1992 deed of settlement was full and final for commercial fishing, and aquaculture was included. Yet here we are, 12 years on, debating this bill because the Labour Government is totally embarrassed about the way it has treated M\u0101ori over the seabed and foreshore legislation. Helped by United Future and by New Zealand First, and knowing that Labour is about to lose votes in every M\u0101ori electorate, the Government has trumped up this deal, which is without principle. It is giving M\u0101ori up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space, as a means of buying votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe really interesting thing is that M\u0101ori find this settlement unacceptable, as well. They are prepared to accept the gift\u2014why would they not\u2014but every M\u0101ori submitter told us that in his or her view this was not a settlement, it had not been negotiated, and he or she was not accepting it as full and final settlement. So today we are passing legislation that not only does not settle Treaty of Waitangi grievances but reinvents the grievance industry and gives it a whole new lease of life for generations to come. That is a very sad development for race relations in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThere can be no justification for it at all, particularly when we see the words of Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan. He was heavily involved in the discussions with Ng\u0101i Tahu. That very good settlement was negotiated by the National Government in 1996, and the House signed up to it. Even Labour voted for it. Because Ng\u0101i Tahu wished to be involved in aquaculture, as part of that settlement they negotiated the right to 10 percent of space in their area on a pre-emptive tender basis. They did not expect a gift. They were quite happy to pay for it when it was tendered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThat is absolute proof in my mind that Sir T\u012Bpene was absolutely right. He knew that aquaculture had been addressed in the 1992 settlement, and nothing will change my mind on that matter. Labour is desperately attempting to justify this measure by referring to \u201Cunfinished business\u201D. The \u201Cunfinished business\u201D was \u201Cfinished business\u201D\u2014until this Government opened it up again. I say to David Benson-Pope that he has opened up a can of worms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb28107942fa4aae84c2f65634bee2ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb28107942fa4aae84c2f65634bee2ec\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a2294c43fc364bcab603426691078b92\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000058\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Orders Papers 319, 321, and 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 5, and the following amendment to clause 87(2) in his name, be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000059\u0022\u003Eto insert, after the word \u201Cassets\u201D the words \u201C, and representing the interests of iwi\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cbc771b748f34e909ce1f2e18351e2c4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002206c8296281374a48bf2794e79005266d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220fcc2098d43d43899b83e88827d770d3\u0022\u003EPart 6  Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002234f552b8079a441f94489181b1192c25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234f552b8079a441f94489181b1192c25\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E Part 6 will, of course, be broken off and form a separate bill, as will the other parts that we have been and will be debating in the Committee stage. It concerns the amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and is all about the M\u0101ori Land Court dealing with disputes\u2014in particular, those relating to aquaculture in various regions throughout New Zealand. Members will recall that there was negotiation, there was a deed of settlement, and there was an Act passed for the M\u0101ori fisheries settlement in 1992. There was a period of 10 or 12 years when Te Oku Kai Moana, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, had to work with M\u0101ori up and down the length and breadth of the country in order to resolve who had a genuine claim to a fisheries allocation in particular regions. That was a very long-winded process. It involved lots of necessary hearings in front of the M\u0101ori Land Court, and resulted in a bill being brought into Parliament late last year that we looked at during the first part of this year. Interestingly enough, even the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, when it got that legislation after 12 years\u2019 work, made some changes in relation to some iwi making claims to a fisheries allocation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThese amendments in the Aquaculture Reform Bill are to go through the same process as that, so that iwi can put their case as to their right to the allocation of space. They will be doing that primarily before the M\u0101ori Land Court. That is why we are looking at Part 6, \u201CAmendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993\u201D. The difficulty will be that there were 12 years of disputes over the M\u0101ori fisheries settlement\u2014and that was when, back in the early 1990s, there had been negotiation, a deed of settlement, and an Act passed that dealt with that allocation. So members can imagine the disputes we will have before the M\u0101ori Land Court arising from this legislation, given that there has been no negotiation, no deed of settlement, and no Act specifically dealing with this particular treaty settlement. The M\u0101ori Land Court, which is referred to in these short clauses, will be very, very busy indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIt was interesting, when doing the M\u0101ori fisheries settlement, to talk about coastline disputes. That was just one type of dispute that was possible\u2014a dispute about where the coastline began and ended for a particular wh\u0101nau, iwi, and hap\u016B, and, if there was disagreement on that, who had to resolve it and how it was done. The coastline agreement had to do with inshore fisheries only, rather than offshore fisheries as well, so it was major in one sense but not wholly significant. The coastline agreements with regard to aquaculture will be absolutely essential when it comes to deciding which hap\u016B and iwi have claim to a particular aquaculture management area. I can say now to the country that there will be huge arguments over that particular issue. Iwi will be fighting iwi for years and years to come. We will hold our heads in our hands and weep. Had the Minister negotiated with M\u0101ori, signed a deed of settlement with them, and got buy-in, perhaps all that could have been avoided. So if the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, thinks that this part is some kind of silver bullet that will solve aquaculture disputes in the marine management area over the next decade, he is dreaming. That is why we have to have these amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u00221bcacb470dff4cf3b7f04b3001b06d22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bcacb470dff4cf3b7f04b3001b06d22\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It is quite extraordinary that in the Aquaculture Reform Bill\u2014in which we are attempting, anyway, to resolve the issue once and for all\u2014lo and behold, we see Part 6 is totally and specially dedicated towards conflict resolution. One entire part is about conflict resolution, when this is a reform bill in which the whole issue is meant to be sorted in a full, fair, and final way. It is quite extraordinary that the Government itself and the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, who is sitting there and chewing his cud, do not seem to understand that they have just opened up another period for M\u0101ori to fight one another, to argue, and to make the lawyers rich. I can see Donna Hall right now, just beaming from ear to ear at the thought of the millions of dollars she will be gleaning from Part 6, because of the total ineptitude of the Government. I can tell the Committee right now that the lawyers will be getting the snapper and the ordinary M\u0101ori will be getting the empty net, as always in these sorts of settlements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThis legislation will not achieve anything that is near to the nice, warm, fuzzy belief that the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, and the Government seem to have about what will occur once it is passed. It is a recipe for the continuance of the grievance industry. It will pit M\u0101ori against M\u0101ori, iwi against iwi, and even, I guess, relative against relative in the argument as to who is entitled to what. I can only say again that it is extraordinary to see in a bill of this size an entire part\u2014not a clause or a couple of clauses\u2014dedicated towards trying to resolve conflict, or setting in train the principles by which conflict resolution can occur. It is amazing that the Government has predetermined that there will be conflict and, in trying to pre-empt it, has put in a whole new part. I guess I am still thinking to myself that there can be only a clause or two on that, surely. But no, an entire part, consisting of a dozen pages or so, is dedicated towards the resolution of the conflict that must occur as a result of this legislation. I find that to be absolutely amazing. I can only concur with my colleagues from the National Party on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ET\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan was dead right. The Minister should know that he was dead right. If the Minister was doing his job properly, he would get on the phone to him. When I was last aware, T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan was still living in Otago, so it would not even cost the Minister a toll call to get on the phone and ask him what actually happened and what his recall of the process was. We would not even need Part 6 if the opinion of one of the most highly regarded members of M\u0101oridom and of the New Zealand community had been sought by the Government. If the Government had consulted T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan at an early stage, I suspect the whole conflict resolution process would have been unnecessary. We would not be sitting here in urgency, trying yet again to ram another piece of legislation through Parliament that is, in my view, totally unprincipled and not even based on consultation with M\u0101ori to determine whether it is necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002276bd7128f729492f88d940d52ff3b248\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002276bd7128f729492f88d940d52ff3b248\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E As we move to Part 6, I want to pick up on the comments made by my Primary Production Committee colleagues Gerry Eckhoff and Phil Heatley. In Part 5 we have created a huge dispute and grievance between M\u0101ori New Zealanders and non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders. Now we move to Part 6, which is a significant part of the bill. It is totally devoted to trying to find solutions to grievances between M\u0101ori. We have talked throughout the debate about M\u0101ori getting up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space, but nobody has taken much interest in defining who is M\u0101ori and how that space will be actually allocated. I note that no M\u0101ori member of the Labour caucus has even bothered to take a call on any part of the legislation, let alone helped the Committee with this very important part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI confess right at the outset that I do not have a huge appreciation of M\u0101ori politics. I would have thought it was incumbent on some of those M\u0101ori members to help the Committee through this debate. They should tell us how the various iwi or hap\u016B will be recognised so as to receive their entitlement. My colleague Linda Clark\u2014no, Linda Clark was never a colleague of mine, but I accept that she was a colleague of the other side! My colleague Lynda Scott has just mentioned that eight iwi claim to have an affiliation to the Marlborough Sounds, which is the area that has been at the forefront of leading aquaculture development in this country. I pay tribute to the Marlborough District Council for the job it has done. This legislation will give M\u0101ori in the Marlborough Sounds up to 40 percent of new space to be created. We have acknowledged that that will be complex enough to build into this legislation a dispute resolution process for how the aquaculture space will be divvied up within iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThere are no boundaries for this. There is no map of the Marlborough Sounds that states that a particular iwi has an affiliation with a particular bay, and that another iwi has an affiliation with another bay. If M\u0101ori use their brains\u2014and I am sure they will\u2014they will look at the Marlborough Sounds and ask where the most productive areas are. They will then go into a lengthy process of trying to prove to the M\u0101ori Land Court that they have an affiliation to that area\u2014not because it is where they used to fish, but because that is where the most productive space is. The M\u0101ori Land Court cannot handle claims at the moment. We will have to resource it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fdc406bc62a4a678a468b30ad320b63\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: More money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b2752ac9dca42dfabb0dd8547a2646d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: More money from the taxpayers of New Zealand will resource yet another court to try to sort out claims between various M\u0101ori, because the Labour Government is passing legislation that is unprincipled and simply will not work. I want the Minister to rise to his feet and tell us how much additional workload he sees as being put on the M\u0101ori Land Court. Let us have a statement from the Minister in charge, the Hon David Benson-Pope, to prove that he has given some thought to that question. I bet it has not even crossed his mind. He will not be the Minister of Fisheries after the reshuffle of the next few days. Helen Clark knows that the industry is totally disappointed in that man. He has been a disaster. He does not even understand the basics of this bill, let alone the complication associated with Part 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddd73b53faf34bd8a06d2b0d43a9b790\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Is this the man who got demoted off the front bench?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3b8df99b8ab4d7ab64b919b4ba259b6\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I assure members that Darren Hughes, the soon to be former member for Otaki, does not have a clue about this legislation. I know that Nathan Guy, the National Party candidate who is door-knocking in \u014Ctaki at the moment, knows more about this legislation, because I have spoken to him. He knows more about this than Darren Hughes would.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed787c14e88d46dbbe2edbfe0c4f36c1\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Why was this man dumped from the front bench?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224546e939f5c4d3488a5fddbdf336c6c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Hughes that at least I got there. That is further than that member will ever get, sitting in the second row before he is dispatched back to get another job. That is what will happen to that member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI want to debate the issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee34cce52e0444e09231179e41b53f00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee34cce52e0444e09231179e41b53f00\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E I want to follow on from where my honourable colleague David Carter left off. This debate is not just about the eight iwi at the top of the South Island. We are talking about hap\u016B and wh\u0101nau, as well. How will it be decided who has access to the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas? It is extremely difficult. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds at a place called the Portage Resort Hotel. It is a really lovely tourist hotel and was a wonderful place to grow up in. I always remember that on the wall we had this big painting of M\u0101ori carting their canoes over from the Kenepuru Sound to the Queen Charlotte Sound. That is why the area is called Portage\u2014M\u0101ori used to take their canoes across at that lowest point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThere are many different M\u0101ori groups that do not put up a wall, gate, or fence to say that a bit of land is theirs. They live in an area and move to other areas. They were a very mobile society. We all know that Te Rauparaha used to come down and wage war in this area. There would be huge casualties; whole hap\u016B would get wiped out, and then other people would move into that area some time later. The disputes will be very difficult to sort out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EA M\u0101ori chap came into my office a few years ago and said\u2014I always remember him saying this\u2014that when there was no land, no fisheries, and no money, people did not care, but \u201Cnow we do\u201D. He was in dispute with his brother over a patch of resource that he would have liked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220aafa64143a417d93da00cdbfdcab00\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Plenty for the M\u0101ori Land Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022109996c8d58f4a2ab9c38f1e9f3d64b7\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. Where do people go? The whole of Part 6 directs people to the M\u0101ori Land Court to sort out their disputes. There will be massive disputes. Ian Ewen-Street gave an example before that if M\u0101ori are looking at a coastal area or an inland tidal area, and if they happen to be from a hap\u016B or iwi that was based out on the coast, and there is aquaculture in a lagoon, they would want to claim rights to the lagoon. They will miss out. But members can bet their life that they will not want to miss out, so there will be a dispute. Some M\u0101ori will say that there were plenty of times when they planted crops and harvested food from that lagoon. What happens if eight different iwi all claim the same space and we cannot sort it out because at different times they did all use that land? Will they get one-eighth each? Is that what will happen? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003ENobody knows how this issue of 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be resolved. That is the whole problem with Part 5 and Part 6. There was no deed of settlement. M\u0101ori have not accepted this legislation; it has been foisted on them. Sure they will take the 20 percent\u2014who would not take a free handout from the Government? Everyone will do that, if the Government is silly enough to give it. But there was no deed of settlement. It has not been worked out with M\u0101ori. The whole of Part 6 sets up mediation, disputes resolution, the procedures of the court, and how a judge will make determinations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EIn those situations, there are costs. This legislation will cost New Zealand more. The 20 percent of aquaculture going to M\u0101ori will cost, and then there are the costs under Part 6. We do not even need Part 6. It does not need to be in the bill, because we do not need the deal whereby 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be handed out to M\u0101ori. The Government has done this to try to buy off the anger associated with the seabed and foreshore legislation and make M\u0101ori a little happier with it, so that it might get a few votes at the next election and not have the M\u0101ori Party clean it out. That will happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori in this situation have said\u2014and we have heard M\u0101ori members say in this Chamber\u2014that they do not accept this. So we will see disputes. Earlier, I read out the deed of settlement from the 1992 fisheries legislation, which clearly stated that it was a full, fair, and final settlement. I think that will go down in New Zealand history. How many full, fair, and final settlements will we see in this country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u002291800fb3a15d4e4a8f8d530e6484506a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291800fb3a15d4e4a8f8d530e6484506a\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Minister for Racing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4e9e701e7bc42398d7970c7495b20a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4e9e701e7bc42398d7970c7495b20a0\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take up where my colleagues left off in Part 6. Dr Lynda Scott is absolutely right: the deed of settlement was absolutely clear that it was full and final. Now, what are we doing through this bill? We are setting up a whole new raft of situations where there will be dispute between different iwi. They will have to take their matters to the courts\u2014to the M\u0101ori Land Court and the M\u0101ori Appellate Court. Those will be the courts to adjudicate in the mediation between disputing iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI know of situations where iwi have joined together just to help progress the fisheries settlement. After 12 years of that they will now be able to litigate their part again, and what they can achieve through this process. There will be a lot of disputes that will clog up the Crown process of the court. I guess one saving grace is that applicants to the court for adjudication will pay for that part of the process. I guess that that is the only saving grace, but I am sure it will be funded by the taxpayer somewhere along the way. So that is what this part is about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EIf we go to section 26Z inserted by clause 107, \u201CUnsuccessful mediation\u201D, I would like to bring the Minister\u2019s attention to an issue there on which he might like to take a call and give an explanation about what it really means. Subsection (3)(b) states that a judge who refers unresolved issues to the court may be the judge who hears the matter or who provides advice. So I see that rather than have a fresh look at the matter, one has the same judge who then hears the matter in court after being involved in the mediation process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EPerhaps the Minister might like to take a call and give an explanation for that, as he has not taken many calls on this bill, at all. We do have to wonder whether the Minister really understands everything involved in this legislation. I would like him to take a call and give an explanation about why the judge who hears the mediation can also then hear the matter during the court process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThere will be plenty of matters to be heard. Iwi up and down the country will be looking to see what they can get out of the aquaculture system. They will be looking to see what portion they can get out of whatever is on offer from that 20 percent. I know that in my own area there will be conflict between some groups. Ng\u0101ti Maru have an interest over on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames as well as one on the Thames side, and I can well imagine that disputes will arise as a result of their interests conflicting with those of other iwi who perceive that they have an interest over and above that of Ng\u0101ti Maru on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EEven on the Coromandel side of the Firth of Thames, there are already competing interests. M\u0101ori groups have united for the fisheries settlement, but I believe that that position will change when they perhaps have an opportunity to go for claims for aquaculture. They will be seeking to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court, in accordance with Part 6. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThere will be huge litigation from this part, and while adjudicators have to have some understanding of tikanga M\u0101ori, I do not know how that will help with the competing interest groups who have their own ideas around what is relevant to them in terms of tikanga M\u0101ori. So when that type of understanding is being asked for, there will be conflicting interests within that situation as well, and conflicting understandings of what tikanga M\u0101ori will mean to different participants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI see a whole raft of litigation and I see courts being bogged down, so I believe that this part does not serve M\u0101ori at all. It does not serve New Zealand well, at all, and perhaps the Minister could take a call as to why matters have not been resolved so that we do not actually need a resolution disputes process. That should not be necessary if the legislative process had been followed correctly; and if legislators had taken heed of the deed of settlement, the document Dr Lynda Scott read from before, it would not be necessary. If the 20 percent had not been allocated as a part of any aquaculture application, the disputes resolution process would not be necessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221772e9f5-5379-4bfe-9d9b-eaffb4c61b02\u0022 data-id=\u00222d053185f7d14c8db6ec9fe1d43f82cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221772e9f5-5379-4bfe-9d9b-eaffb4c61b02\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d053185f7d14c8db6ec9fe1d43f82cb\u0022\u003EHon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u00226283998219c9486b81fabb46ff1ebe6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226283998219c9486b81fabb46ff1ebe6e\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Part 6, as has been clearly explained by previous speakers, sets out a large new section for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and gives a whole lot of new roles and responsibilities to judges. Essentially, they are the sorts of things that practising lawyers\u2014certainly, lawyers from general practice\u2014would be very familiar with, such as the bitterness that is engendered in disputes over unearned money and over undeserved money. Anyone who has ever practised in a family practice concerning wills and estates knows just what happens when there is a bunch of unearned money at stake. They know how intractable the dispute is, and how little regard people have for assets when they would really rather poke one another in the eye. So it is no surprise that we get a really extensive range of remedies and proposals in this Part 6. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI am interested in the mediation proposal there. First, I do not think it will work, because people are not looking for solutions; they are actually looking to score points off one another. As they know deep down that they did not earn or deserve the money, they are quite willing to see it squandered in dispute. So mediation may be a bright idea, but it is much more likely to be simply the precursor to litigation. But on looking at that issue, I see that a mediator in this case can be appointed not as a person with experience in tikanga, but as one with the skills and experience to undertake mediation on issues arising under Part 5. Well, Part 5 is the part we have just dealt with that sets out the entitlement conditions for the windfall. Part 5, for example, states that by 2014 the Government must have provided equivalence in value to M\u0101ori of 20 percent of all the existing aquaculture areas. Now, when one looks at that and thinks of what sort of expertise that mediator will have to have under the proposed new section 26V of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, one is driven back to wondering just how anyone can have that skill and experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EPart 5 is so badly drafted that it is actually hard to know what Part 6 will be looking for. Part 5, where it talked about valuation, talked as if valuation was valuation\u2014stupid! Well, I ask: valuation when? When this mediator is going to look at it, will the value be determined as at 2014, will it be determined as at the date that aquaculture areas are created, or will it be determined as at the date that tendering or any other allocation process sets a value? Will it be determined when the aquaculture areas are in full production, or is this an unimproved-value calculation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022848c2640271b4f89bbcc3d2930a8c965\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: It will go for the maximum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229de0cd18699d436aaa94cf8f28be447e\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: It will go for the maximum\u2014obviously. What it will do is provide an enormous range of issues on which guidance will be needed: first, as to matters of law before a mediation can be properly conducted, and, second, on all the juicy opportunities there are for the beneficiaries of this completely undeserved windfall, to poke one another in the eye. Even then, mediators will have to go back and look at the underlying facts, because no one can tell from this woefully badly drafted and badly conceived piece of law just what kind of valuation is concerned. Why did someone not just look at the Rating Valuations Act? Why did someone not take a slight bit of interest in going behind the slogan and asking what would happen in practice? Just what kind of valuation is expected? Is it on a going concern, bare land, or a development potential? What about the situation where the area has a reserve, or where the underlying allocation is still in dispute? We do not know. But there will be rich pickings in this, and there will be rich pickings because this legislation has no principled foundation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIt is a bad-faith piece of work. It shows bad faith on the part of M\u0101ori who have taken advantage of a wimpish Government. I would like to test whether Arnold Schwarzenegger\u2019s term of description for the Democrats would be unparliamentary in New Zealand. He called Kerry and his colleagues \u201Cgirly men\u201D, and I think that what we have seen here is a bunch of girly men fronting up to some pretty tough negotiators\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00222012d98edfc3407db2c722d1b4477430\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222012d98edfc3407db2c722d1b4477430\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229aa9e38ff26f45cc8ec3b59468e2190e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000102\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 6 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222bd8b733e2ed4b2294221167f4388268\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222da2cae49cb949babda8d934e570e382\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022abcd7983b05c42318e158190b62285bc\u0022\u003EPart 7  Aquaculture reform (repeals and transitional provisions)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4199d58330347c2bce19583bb2275c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4199d58330347c2bce19583bb2275c7\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I have an amendment to this particular part that I would like to put before the Committee. It relates to the exorbitant time frames these reforms allow for decisions to be made by regional councils, by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and by the Minister of Conservation. On their own, the decision time-frames for each of these particular actors in the process of allowing an aquaculture marine area to proceed seem fine, although one would have to ask why it takes 6 months for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries and others involved in the process to make a decision. The officials came to us and said that 6 months is the time it takes to gather together all the information, to talk to submitters, to process the information, to go back to submitters, to work through all the science, then to come back with clear, concise, and reasoned answers. So we took their word for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EBut if we add that 6 months to another 3 months for the regional councils to make their decisions, to have appeals, and to go through further processes, we see that the process from go to whoa to set up an aquaculture management area, right through to awarding consents, can take many years indeed. So I would like to present an amendment to clause 145 regarding the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries making a decision on an aquaculture management area. I commend officials for the sensible decision to have the Ministry of Fisheries involved early on in the process of setting up an aquaculture management area. A regional council goes to the Ministry of Fisheries and says: \u201CWe\u2019d like an aquaculture management area in this particular bay, of this size. What do you think\u2014will it affect commercial fishers?\u201D. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries looks at it, goes through this process over 6 months, then says: \u201CYes, it will affect commercial fishers. Yes, the effect is adverse. Yes, it is a significant adverse effect.\u201D, or that there is no effect whatsoever, or that it is somewhere in-between.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EMy concern is that the chief executive, in taking 6 months, can actually go back to the regional council and say that more information is required to make a rational decision. That is not a bad thing; in fact, it is common sense. Clause 145(1A) states that the chief executive may request more information from the regional council. But clause 145(1B) states: \u201C\u2026 the period beginning on the day when a request for further information is made and ending on the day when the information is provided is excluded from the 6 month period \u2026\u201D. That means that the time from when the request for further information goes out to when the information comes back is added to the 6-month period. My amendment would insert new clause 145(1C): \u201CA regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.\u201D In other words, a regional council can elect to say to the Minister of Fisheries: \u201CNo, we won\u2019t provide you with more information. That is our choice. We would rather you made the decision on the information already provided, and if it\u2019s a negative decision, so be it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhy I say that is that when, under the Resource Management Act process, councils endlessly come back for more information, the clock stops and time drags on. They go back through the process, more information is requested, the clock stops, and time drags on. Then yet more information is requested. The difficulty is that in a regional council process, or even in an Environment Court process, going back for further information can be genuine, because further information is needed to make a rational decision, but sometimes it is a way of slowing down the process, stalling a decision, and putting it on the back-burner, because it is all too hard. I see no reason why, in this case, a regional council cannot say: \u201CWe have provided as much information as we can. It\u2019s very costly to provide further information. In our view we have provided enough information for you to make a decision. Could you please make a decision on merit, based on the information we have already provided. We\u2019ll take the punt. If you turn down the application for an aquaculture management area, well, so be it, but we\u2019d rather have the decision resolved as soon as possible.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo I put it to the Committee that we insert that new clause. It does not take away from the fact that the chief executive still has 6 months to decide. It does not take away from the fact that he might request new information. It does not take away from the fact that the regional councils might choose to provide that information, which would be the sensible course. But it does give the regional councils an opportunity to say: \u201CWe\u2019d rather that you made a decision based on the information we have already given you.\u201D That seems reasonable to me, and I hope members of the Committee will support my amendment to add new clause 145(1C). It reads: \u201CA regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.\u201D That amendment will be voted on at the end of the debate on this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EInterestingly enough, we also have issues around clause 140\u2014which I will not be providing amendments to\u2014regarding the revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. There was a huge sigh of relief from freshwater fish farmers when they learnt that the regulations tying them down were to be dropped, but they are concerned that they will have to face a new set of regulations in the future. They asked the select committee why that was. The answer that came back from the officials, whom I would like to acknowledge today, was a sensible answer. There are two reasons. One is that a degree of regulation is needed so that we can police fisheries sensibly. I talked about p\u0101ua yesterday. We do not know whether someone farming p\u0101ua has got it legally or illegally. We do not know whether someone claiming to have received p\u0101ua from a fish farmer has received it legally or illegally, or, indeed, has received it from that farmer. We need a way to track that, and to keep fish fees accountable. We need a degree of policing regulation, and that seems fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe other good argument that came forward regarded biosecurity and traceability. Freshwater fish farmers on land need a degree of biosecurity protection as well. We do not want our markets to be up in arms because in some way we have had a biosecurity breach overseas that has reflected on our aquaculture industry. So there has to be a degree of traceability when it comes to freshwater fish farming regulations\u2014and I have been drifting into the land-based aquaculture argument, as well. That seems fair enough to us. We understand why there is revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. We understand why new regulations are coming into force to cover those farmers. We understand that land-based aquaculture farmers need a fair degree of regulation when it comes to policing, compliance, and biosecurity, and also in regard to discharges. Land-based farmers often take in water\u2014it often is sea-water species, if a sea-water species is being farmed\u2014and that sea-water is then discharged, and under the Resource Management Act a permit to discharge is needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESo I do not think our aquaculturists can argue that they can be completely free of regulations, nor should they be. I understand the revocation clause and I understand why other regulations have to be put in place under the auspices of this particular Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u002298ab4a7384384e8e99182e52355f1445\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298ab4a7384384e8e99182e52355f1445\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E One of the issues that concerned marine farmers was their ability to alternate between species on their farms. They felt they should be able to vary between green-lipped mussels, blue mussels, Pacific oysters, rock oysters\u2014well, perhaps not rock oysters\u2014and so on, according to the economics of farming at the time. Their analogy was that they wanted to be able to operate in the way that a land farmer does\u2014alternating between sheep, cattle, deer, pigs, goats, or whatever\u2014and the members of the Primary Production Committee agreed with them. We thought there was a good argument for marine farmers to have a degree of flexibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe only conditions we put on it were, first, that they had to apply, when they originally got their consent, to farm multiple species; once their applications were approved they could move between species. The other constraint we put on it was that they could do it only amongst filter-feeding fish. We were very aware that fin-fish farming uses a considerable amount of additional supplementary feed, so there are problems in terms of waste material, the effluent from the fish themselves, and the fact that a species like salmon consumes something like four times its own body weight in fish that is imported, usually from South America. While it may be highly profitable locally, it is totally unsustainable on a global scale.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI want to move to the transitional provisions in Part 7. The existing holders of leases and licences for marine farms are deemed now to have coastal permits for another 20 years, from the date of the passage of this Act. That will be very good news for existing farmers. It will give them certainty for 20 years, obviously. But where application is made for a new aquaculture management area space or an expansion of existing farms, there will be some problems, and that is where the transitional provisions apply. A regional council that wishes to enlarge an aquaculture management area will invite the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to make an aquaculture decision. In the past, the obtaining of a fisheries permit after a resource consent has been granted has been a source of huge frustration for marine farmers. They have their consent and they are ready to go; they wait for their fisheries permit, and they wait, and they wait. There is no time limit on how long they have to wait. We have heard of examples that were just outrageous\u2014of farmers waiting for many years. This bill is trying to bring forward the input from the Ministry of Fisheries in the process, so that when somebody applies for a coastal permit he or she gets approval\u2014or not\u2014from both the ministry and the local council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EWhat we are doing, though, is putting very strict guidelines on the activities of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries. I have to say that general confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries amongst fishers, and others, is low. I hope things will change. The ministry has a new chief executive, and maybe the culture will change. But, my having said that, we have decided that strict time lines and objectives need to be laid out, so we have said that in deciding whether to make a determination, or a reservation, about an aquaculture decision, the chief executive can have regard to only three things. They are the effect of the aquaculture marine area on, first, the biological diversity of the aquatic environment; second, the productivity and biological abundance of fisheries resources; and, third, habitats of known significance for fisheries management. The bill also specifies that the aquaculture decision must be very explicit in terms of the species affected, and whether commercial, recreational, or customary fishers are affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EWe have also been very clear that we are putting a time limit on the chief executive, and the time limit is 6 months. Over and above that, we have also allowed for an appeal to the High Court. Anybody who has made an application, or the chief executive, or the council, can appeal to the High Court on matters of substance. It is not just matters of process, which is what used to apply in terms of judicial review; matters of substance can now be sent to the High Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThese transitional provisions are excellent. I think they give marine farmers a degree of certainty that they have not had in the past. A lot of them have said that they would go overseas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd74fabb08a047eb8ce17896c1492122\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd74fabb08a047eb8ce17896c1492122\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to take a call on Part 7. This part, of course, provides for transitional matters relating to the ending of the moratorium under the Resource Management Act of 1991. It has taken 4 long years for this moratorium to be finally lifted, in, I think, early January. For 4 years, the potentially most exciting industry that this country has come up with in recent years has been held in abeyance, held back, champing at the bit to get on with it, because of the procrastination of this Government and its inability to have a little vision, owing to its concern about what might happen around the coast. Now we must, therefore, apply hugely stringent rules to the transitional matters relating to the end of this moratorium.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that if we really take a hard, cold, calculating look at what has happened around the coast in terms of the loss of our biodiversity, the loss of our aquatic life, we see that it is not the marine farmer, it is not the aquaculture industry, that has caused any problems for the district councils or regional councils. It is, in fact, more likely to be members of the public who have caused problems. It is those who strip the coast bare of shellfish with bits of piano wire. It is those who jump in their fizz-boats and go out for a bit of recreational boating\u2014and why should they not? Often as not, the boat goes from one area to another, and transfers an unwanted organism from one area to another. Those problems have caused huge angst to this country. For example, the ballasts of ships cause more harm to our biodiversity and our coastal waters than anything a marine farmer could throw up. Marine farming is essentially a static industry. It does not move from place to place. We have just had problems in some South Island rivers caused by, apparently, fishermen who, unbenownst to them, had transferred unwanted organisms on their fishing gear\u2014on their rods, their boots, their clothing, or whatever. So why do we not have transitional requirements that apply to those people? They have caused more problems than anything that the aquacultural industry could possibly come up with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI find it quite distressing when I look at the number of transitional requirements. An authoritarian attitude is being taken by the regional councils, on a constant basis, towards this fledgling industry. It has to survive, it has to grow, and, yes, it will make the odd mistake from time to time. For goodness\u2019 sake, there is no effort without error. If the Government thinks it can manage the risk of new organisms entering our systems and our coastal waters by regulation and control, I tell it that it will not work. Certainly, by educating people and by getting through to the recreational users we have a greater chance of ensuring that our coastal waters remain as good as they possibly can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe Minister and this bill must recognise that the problem is not the marine industry, and it is not aquaculture; the problem comes more from those outside the industry, as I said earlier, especially from ships coming in and discharging ballasts. Has the Government applied regulation and controls around that aspect? Ships and pleasure boats coming in from the Islands, for example, may bring in unwanted organisms. Where is the control that the regional councils should be applying over those individuals or boating organisations, rather than their applying control over the marine-farming industry? It seems to me that the marine-farming industry is being used as the whipping boy. We are adding huge compliance costs on to that industry, which is struggling to survive under this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e84100fb60c4430484c41c1600568129\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e84100fb60c4430484c41c1600568129\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E As we move towards the concluding stages of the debate in the Committee stage of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, I ask the Committee to take note of Part 7, \u201CAquaculture reform (repeals and transitional provisions)\u201D, because it is a very important part that ensures that this legislation proceeds and works. I want the Committee also to note the considerable changes that have occurred to it through the select committee process. I raise that point because it is an absolute truth that the legislation as presented to the House was totally unworkable. It is a shame that the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, who is the Minister in the chair, is not prepared to stand and take calls to address questions about this part. He should be explaining how he ever ticked off legislation that was so poorly drafted it was totally unworkable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6f6caffb1f9480abbb0b056dfdef2ec\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a bit rough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203acbe2cc4ca4208b9b96f00941b4764\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Clayton Cosgrove, who sat on the Primary Production Committee but who has not been prepared to take even one call, now interjects and says that my comments are a bit rough. I suggest to Clayton Cosgrove that he should get out the notes he made at the select committee. He will find that the majority of the changes made\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022011d9b9dcaa049cc9180880726dbfc34\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: I thought he was asleep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022540ff30ef2c1442fb735ff06fdf0ac2f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I will not comment on that. If Clayton Cosgrove gets out his notes and has a look at the significant amount of change that occurred throughout the select committee process, he will see much of it is in this part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EOne of the important issues presented to the select committee was the district plan for the Tasman area. It is an area of New Zealand that would be eminently suitable to aquaculture, but it is one that has been tied up in the Environment Court, I think I am right in saying, for almost a decade. Submitters came to us and said they were nearly at the end of a huge process. They said they were waiting now for a judgment from the Environment Court, and this legislation, as drafted by the Hon David Benson-Pope, would mean that all that work, and the hundreds and thousands of dollars they had spent, would be completely nullified. So the select committee has had to tidy up the work of the Hon David Benson-Pope yet again, and we have had to make a significant amendment to clause 153(4) to ensure that when the Environment Court rules on the Tasman Bay situation, which we understand is imminent, all the work and process that have occurred over the last 10 years are not nullified by this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI want to move on to the deletion of clause 120. When this legislation left the desk of the Minister of Fisheries, it contained a clause that stated that in the future all salmon farmers would have to apply for another consent in order to feed fish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c88c23eb35734f908774c736fce45169\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: A tax rort!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8c2fa3aa00c45db84d10a43a9d6ae28\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague Sandra Goudie says that it is a tax rort, and I am sure that more costs would have been associated with it. The important thing is that those salmon farms have been operating for years. We visited one on a select committee tour, in order to make ourselves familiar with the exercise. There is an operation in the Marlborough Sounds worth millions of dollars, and what it does is to corral the salmon into cages and then, logically, it has to feed them so that they will grow. But the Minister did not seem to realise that part of the process of salmon farming is to feed the salmon. He suddenly suggested sending the farmers away to obtain another consent. What a nonsense that was from David Benson-Pope! It is absolute proof to me that he has not bothered even to go and look at how a salmon farm works. The good news is that the select committee was able to delete clause 120 entirely, and that we have tidied up an inconsistency\u2014a technical illegality\u2014by making a minor amendment to clause 117. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI now want to move to the issue of all coastal permits being extended, with the passing of this legislation, for one 20-year period. I want to take some time to talk about that provision, because the workability of the 20-year extension was raised with us by one submitter, Akaroa Salmon. Effectively, its concern was that all the permits would roll over on exactly the same day in 20 years\u2019 time, once the law was enacted, and it wondered whether the local authorities would be able to handle that. The select committee took note of Akaroa Salmon and the submission it received from Tom Bates, because he is one of the most respected salmon farmers in New Zealand. He is a man who can be described as a true Kiwi battler. He does not have a big operation. It is nowhere near the size of that of King Salmon in the Marlborough Sounds. Akaroa Salmon is a relatively small operation that has been built on Tom Bates\u2019 ingenuity and his commitment to the industry. I pay tribute to Tom Bates in the debate today, because he typifies what aquaculture can do for this country, if only we can get legislation enacted that allows it to happen. With regard to the argument raised by Tom Bates and his co-submitter Peter Cotton\u2014both of those arguments were about the ability of councils to cope with all the renewals on the same day in 20 years\u2019 time\u2014I think that given 20 years to prepare for it, local authorities will actually be able to cope. So we are not recommending an amendment with regard to that issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI move now to another important change we have had to make, which goes to the issue of off-site marine farms. I refer to clause 159. The select committee was staggered to find that, in many cases, existing marine farms are not operating according to the coordinates of their original approval. They have moved\u2014some maybe inadvertently, and some maybe quite deliberately. We now need to ensure that we pass legislation that corrects that and makes sure that the area of an existing farm at the moment becomes the authorised area for its continued existence. Submitters then raised the issue that if councils or the Ministry of Fisheries had allowed those farms to operate incorrectly and in the wrong positions, who should pay the costs of making sure that we right those particular inaccuracies? We have recognised that there will be costs. In fact, I think the Northland Regional Council said there would be significant costs. I think the committee was of the opinion, at the end of the day, that although there will be costs, they will not be very significant. But in order to make sure that we get that particular aspect right, we have changed the legislation to give councils the opportunity to initiate changes that correct inaccuracies. If we had left that to the individual farmers, in some cases they might have seen a correction as necessary and worthwhile\u2014and that was the way the bill was drafted\u2014but in other cases individual aquaculturalists might have decided that because they had got away with inaccuracies for the last 5 years they would continue to get away with them, and they would not have moved to tidy them up. I think that yet another valuable change made by the select committee was to allow the councils to initiate a change in that situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThose are certainly the major points that spring to mind immediately. But, as I said earlier, anybody who is prepared to study what the select committee has returned to Parliament in Part 7 will see that the select committee as a whole worked very hard to change this part. The real question that arises is why the bill was so poorly presented, and why it caused the industry so much angst, in the first place. The only possible answer is that, as many people have said in the Chamber in the last couple of days as we have debated aquaculture reform, aquaculture is a very complex industry, and it requires a competent Minister. I certainly hope Helen Clark is listening on the ninth floor to this debate, and that she will take the opportunity to try\u2014and I know it will be a desperate thing\u2014to find somebody within the Labour Party ranks who is confident enough to handle fisheries. Harry Duynhoven has just put his hand up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a9a5add45384785806c6594343a27dd\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: Impossible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283e3c1b885ec4103ac5fd9e8215e70b9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Sandra Goudie says it is impossible. Well, the industry deserves better than David Benson-Pope. That is the main thing\u2014the industry deserves better than the Minister it has now. The Minister may be good at driving civil union bills through Parliament\u2014that may be his real interest in life\u2014but certainly he has shown that he does not have a lot of ability when it comes to managing the fisheries of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u002202413228af874825aa1ba2fb8ee38064\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202413228af874825aa1ba2fb8ee38064\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2d5394fdaa54c52a0702df31813573e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2d5394fdaa54c52a0702df31813573e\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Part 7 is Mr Hodgson\u2019s shame. This is the part that one goes through mechanically. [Interruption] He is not the Minister in the chair, no, but I ask members to remember he was the Minister who kicked all this legislation off\u2014the former Minister who said that aquaculture was running wildly out of control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284eea2ae35ce4704bcde9eb30a24c008\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the \u201CMinister for Moratoriums\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ad49f8d474246e1acee6616adedf065\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: The \u201CMinister for Moratoriums\u201D said aquaculture was wildly out of control and the councils did not know what they were doing, so we should all have a breather, and we would get a logical, rational structure. He said we would get something in place that everyone could understand, so that the industry could step forward confidently. Well, when I read Part 7\u2014and this is the first time I have read it\u2014I find that it is an absolute catalogue of shame. It is stuffed full of interim solutions, reservations, and opportunities to second-guess and undermine. The clear property rights that it should establish are clearly not available, and Part 7 recites the reasons for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI know that the Minister is not taking calls here, but Mr Carter\u2019s very interesting speech referred to the specific requirement in clause 20 to obtain a permit for feeding or for the discharge of contaminants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bdc9efab47f421dad846059030f7c6e\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: 120.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8c1feef3abf451483332dad135286ac\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 120. Where has that clause gone?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022789312916ba04facbbe60ba1615a3bc5\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0847409805c48c48eeac80fa33db8a0\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: So it has been cleaned out completely. I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on that. It is very rare to see a whole tissue of nonsense removed entirely, without someone trying to save face by putting something back in to cover it. I take it, then, that the Government does not have a back-door way of getting at the same objective as that of the conditions that were dealt with in the feeding and discharge of contaminants clause. Although the table that appears in clause 111 sets out a process, when I looked through it I could not see where the contaminants assessment came in. But maybe it comes, by implication, under the requirement for a resource management consent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ECertainly, after going through the transitional provisions, the deeming provisions, and the attempt to bring all that within one context, it seems clear that either the legislation was over-ambitious in the first place or there has been a change of objective, whereby it is now thought to be easier to leave people as they were. All the various lobby groups and interest groups, and in particular the private fishers or non-commercial fishers whom the Government keeps talking about in this legislation, are left to face a continual temptation to be affronted, to keep negotiating, and to constrain and limit the aquaculture areas, without the legislation imposing on or giving aquaculture permit owners the best long-term incentive to look after their environment, which is the right to take the residual benefit that goes with perpetual, genuine freehold title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhen I see the opportunities under this part for the Minister to intervene, for forfeitures, for variations, and for changes through the registration processes, it is very evident to me that this is a very different kind of asset for farmers to invest in from genuine property. With genuine property, people get the benefit of looking after the property. They get the benefit of the improvements they make, and they get the detrimental effect of ruining an area\u2014of ruining the environment they are in. We can draw on the common law\u2014which over the years has filtered itself\u2014concepts of nuisance. This legislation has to rely instead on an inspectorate process\u2014on a process of prescribing in advance what people can and cannot do, and of filtering everything through experts who wield extraordinary powers. I have just been looking, in the Regulations Review Committee, at a set of regulations to deal with contaminants in an animal food chain. What strikes me there is the same point that comes through in this part of the bill: there is a view that people will only behave themselves if they are told what to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc6439b652d7477199d6580c0a3652f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc6439b652d7477199d6580c0a3652f4\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228bc5fdf79c2740e693a6ee98d0d5c156\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000148\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 145 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000149\u0022\u003Eto insert the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000150\u0022\u003E(1C)\tA Regional Council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223645c4d01bb84db2b1817ee1ea08797f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000151\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 321 and 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 7 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dee8e9acd5a844b9b96159d1e037c640\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222ee3f2acf207468c92d85feba5c77f6b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 7 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022770e71c1e6334c8b9fbdbd5f1963bbb5\u0022\u003ESchedules\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000153\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ba77a918eab44aaab0b0b0e2c0a98991\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226708359ef3c8423888acb4e7c5cd0026\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000154\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 2A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022aa8ccc6094d4432b95d7eaab439736fb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c0a4e8427ca145f0ba52fe08bf78faf5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2A as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2A as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000155\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222c591b89f8464a4cbd4595c813f3cc50\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221a3cbaac4f7d46688541945d4a6223e2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222c8d3d3854544e9199fb4e6ee1930f47\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227f9ef7c6aec84d78a3e1387792e20442\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e42b8494709547fd888404d3a385f42a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e42b8494709547fd888404d3a385f42a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E In talking to the title clause, clause 1, I point out to anyone who has been following the debate over the last day or so that this is nothing about reforming aquaculture. It is about getting rid of the incompetence of the previous Minister, Pete Hodgson, whose response to difficulties within the aquaculture industry was to impose a moratorium. It was too hard for the Minister to handle, and he did not have the intellectual grunt to sort it out, so he hands it over to David Benson-Pope, who the Prime Minister thought had the intellectual grunt to sort out the aquaculture industry. That is why the Primary Production Committee had to spend something like 70 hours sorting out this mess for the Government. We should be calling this bill the \u201CTreaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry Reform Bill\u201D, because that is what this legislation will do. This legislation extends the issue of grievance associated with the Treaty of Waitangi into the next generation, the generation after that, and generations after that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe legislation does not provide for the settlement of M\u0101ori grievances\u2014quite the opposite. The submitters who came before the select committee, particularly M\u0101ori, said that this would not settle anything. M\u0101ori said: \u201CWe will take the gift if you are silly enough to give us up to 40 percent of aquaculture space. We will take it, but don\u2019t expect that we are bound to a settlement, because you have never negotiated with us.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThat is where this Government is making such a mistake. If there are grievances associated with the Treaty of Waitangi, then they should sit around the table to sort them out, and sort them out the way the National Party did with Ng\u0101i Tahu in 1996. But I say to you, Minister, that you cannot negotiate a settlement by decree. You cannot negotiate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb3b873b638944499bca6f36c11bd9a3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member should not bring the Chair into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0f01b3307fa4bf0991ca65fc9797648\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I do not want to bring the Chair into the debate. I want to bring the Minister into the debate. I would be delighted if the Minister would come into the debate, instead of sitting there, fiddling with his comics, and not prepared to take calls. Actually, I would be delighted if anybody in the Labour Party came into the debate. Janet Mackey was on the select committee as deputy chair. Has she taken one call on the Aquaculture Reform Bill? We then had Clayton Cosgrove, who did take just one call\u2014he sought a closure. He was so embarrassed. He knows that this legislation will not be popular in the Waimakariri electorate. He knows that it is race-based legislation, so he took one call to close down the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EBut we have other Labour members on the select committee. We had the Hon Harry Duynhoven. He sat through most of the debate over the last day or so, but I do not think that he took a call. Does anybody remember Harry Duynhoven taking a call? They will not, because he did not, I tell the Minister. He was not allowed to take a call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EFinally, we had the Hon Dover Samuels. He is the member from the Labour Party who promised to deliver proof to the select committee that there was unfinished business associated with the Treaty of Waitangi settlement. He evaporated on that promise, because he does not have any proof of unfinished business. So I say that I had no intention of bringing the Chair into the debate, but I would be delighted to bring any member of the Labour Party into the debate. That is the purpose of the legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295a0fca4ff25446491c7f791f340d670\u0022\u003ELianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Give us a good speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221660e8f025a54cedafc562eeaeaec2a8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Lianne Dalziel is going to take a call. She would know nothing about aquaculture. If she did take a call, one would have to wonder whether it was the truth anyway. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe other thing that we have before the Committee today is not one Supplementary Order Paper, but four Supplementary Order Papers after the bill left the Primary Production Committee. The bill was reported back, was meant to be ready for passing, and the Minister found not one mistake, but four mistakes associated with the drafting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u002298325582b470458ca2aa20f9db57babc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298325582b470458ca2aa20f9db57babc\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to talk on the title debate of the Aquaculture Reform Bill. This bill makes changes to the Resource Management Act, the Marine Farming Act, the Fisheries Act 1983, and the Fisheries Act 1996. I have to pay tribute to some of the very key industry players, people such as Jim Jessop. In Marlborough we call Jim the father of aquaculture, and the father of marine farming. It was people such as Jim Jessop who absolutely developed this industry from 30 years ago. He forged an industry in New Zealand that has developed into a multimillion-dollar earner. Also Paul Lupi and Terry Schwass are people who have put so much effort into this industry. We had the Marine Farming Act in 1971\u201423 years ago. That shows that this is a very new industry for New Zealand, but it is actually\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291c95bacb1f6451899adb4a191d637eb\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: That is 33 years!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022250c6d6a8a9141318f979ca5212df662\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: Oh yes, 33 years ago. But it has been a long time coming to this point today where we actually have the Aquaculture Reform Bill. We had the previous Minister, as the Hon David Carter said, who did not have a clue what to do with aquaculture. We have fisheries on one side, and the Department of Conservation on the other. We have the Resource Management Act on one side, and local government on the other. Here we have the poor aquacultural industry stuck in the middle with no one sticking up for it. Pete Hodgson certainly never did. He never stuck up for the industry, which was so disappointed in him. Members should have heard what the industry had to say; it was not very complimentary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003ESo there was a change of Minister to try to drive this through. But what happened was that the Hon David Carter, as chair of the Primary Production Committee, actually managed to make a huge number of changes to this bill. Lianne Dalziel over there squawks and squawks, but she does not ever take a call. She knows nothing about aquaculture. She lost her ministerial warrant and all she can do now is come to this Chamber and try to be nasty and criticise other people. Maybe she should try being substantial. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI thought she was good when she first came in. She has got worse and worse. I was so wrong. I thought she was going to be a good Minister but all she did was get worse and worse. She will be very lucky if she keeps her seat. People are very disappointed in her. It is a pity she does not take a call. But she could not take a call, because she knows nothing about this bill. She could not even debate a title clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe moratorium has stalled this industry in the gates of the 21st century. In Marlborough, aquaculture was our biggest income earner. It went from 20 percent growth down to 0 percent growth. The industry players were so frustrated. The reason we had the delays on this bill and that we are debating it only now is due to the foreshore and seabed legislation. This Government wanted to do a deal with M\u0101ori that was about the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas. It had always been rumoured that this would be the case. But we know that the 1992 M\u0101ori fisheries settlement included aquaculture. We have heard that through the debate. We have also heard that Labour promised to come up with some sort of evidence that aquaculture was not included. It never did that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe overview in the commentary to this bill states: \u201Cthe settlement of post-1992 contemporary M\u0101ori claims to commercial aquaculture in the coastal marine area\u201D. Well, many New Zealanders are going to shudder at that thought of contemporary M\u0101ori claims\u2014not the settlement of past grievance. This is a contemporary claim. The M\u0101ori grievance industry is never going to end, and this bill is one of the reasons why it is not going to end, because there is no deed of settlement. It was not negotiated with M\u0101ori. We will have huge disputes over which iwi and which hap\u016B will be entitled to this 20 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe marine-farming industry is very pleased with one thing, and that is the first right of refusal. It is very pleased with that, because it has invested huge amounts of its time, money, and effort, even though it did not get as much as it wanted. What it did not get was the one-stop shop, and it is still very concerned about that. At the moment the industry has to go through a Resource Management Act process as well as through the Ministry of Fisheries. We know that it has been taking over 2 years to get permits from the Ministry of Fisheries and it has been extremely frustrating for those players in the industry. They go through the hugely expensive resource management consent process but then they cannot get a ministry consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd9d66ede2be4840b9cf3d5b1c4bff62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd9d66ede2be4840b9cf3d5b1c4bff62\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I want to just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ece1e7af1f6409e85dca4305ebb5c37\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Embarrass myself?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297149f835f814378bb054da02af0720b\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: No, I was not going to do that. I have had good lessons, because I have seen the ACT party and the National Party embarrass themselves right through this bill, and I do not intend to do that at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EThe Aquaculture Reform Bill is aptly named. It does not reform the aquaculture industry as such. It gets rid of a moratorium. Why the National administration did not do that years ago I have no idea. I have heard all sorts of criticism about what is happening in this bill. However, I did not see any lead given to the industry in the formative stages of this industry\u2014not even to the degree of help. In my opinion National cannot really talk. It is not the industry itself that is being reformed here; it is the administration of the industry, and that was well overdue for reform. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EOne thing I have to mention that was not mentioned in Part 7 was the business of off-site farms. I mention that to show the sort of administration that needed to be reformed\u2014that is, over the years, in many parts of the country, aquaculture farmers, through the best will in the world I am sure, have let their farms become off-site. In other words, they are not where they are supposed to be on the sea floor. They are not in the right space, like some members of the National Party at the present time. They are not quite in the right space. Aquaculture farmers have to bring back their farms into the space that they are supposed to occupy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EThat is all very well, and so on, but who will pay for that? New Zealand First implores the Minister to give some consideration to helping local councils with that, because it was lack of oversight and control by the Ministry of Fisheries that has enabled those situations to happen. We see it as hardly fair to now require local councils to put those things right. We implore the Minister to look at that and to be understanding of that particular matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EThe 20 percent allocation to M\u0101ori, my goodness me, has caused a furore, and National and ACT have got really excited about that. I would just mention again, for the fourth time, that the precedent for the 20 percent was set by the National Party back in 1992. At the time, my leader and his brother, carried on by a third brother in Parliament today, said when they were part of the National Party that those things would happen, and they have. This Aquaculture Reform Bill could not have been passed without the 20 percent allocation in it. Quite clearly, that would otherwise have been challenged in the court, and those challenges would have succeeded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EI wanted to mention where New Zealand First was coming from on those issues and say that they were mentioned by the Peters brothers many years ago when the precedents were jammed through the House by the then National Government. It is no use those National members wimping on about a 20 percent allocation, when the 20 percent precedent was set by the National Government. If that was not continued, clearly it would have been open to challenge. Whatever the people of the day thought and whatever was written down, we are dealing with those things now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003ESo I think the title is particularly apt. New Zealand First is supporting the bill. Those involved in aquaculture have our support and regard. I am sure they will carry on to make this the wonderful industry that it has been from the start, and will continue to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EI cannot sit down without thanking the officials who guided us through. I also give credit to the chairman, the Hon David Carter, but especially to the officials, without whom we would have been in trouble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u002259840113a3574e49a13033e3d9c29db1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259840113a3574e49a13033e3d9c29db1\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E We come now to debate the title of the bill, which, of course, we should all know by now, is the Aquaculture Reform Bill. But what a misnomer that is. The aquaculture industry has not been around long enough. It has not been in the arena long enough to be reformed. This bill is in fact the \u201CAquaculture Restriction Bill 2004\u201D. Goodness knows how long it will be before we come back to this House and ask ourselves why that industry is not performing. We will then start to look at the controls, restrictions, and cost structures that this legislation will impose on the industry. It is about restriction; it is not about reform. There is nothing really to reform the industry from. The aquaculture industry is a fledgling industry. It was trying to find its way in the world, working things out\u2014and I have heard members talk of individuals in the industry, icons of the industry, who were almost doing this thing by the seat of their pants, working it out as they went. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe industry is too young to reform. One cannot reform a fledgling industry. However, the Government came along and said that it knew best. Regional councils and their planners knew best. They had never put a foot in the water, never put a rope down, never actually worked out how the green-lipped mussel or the oysters actually grew, but they said they were hugely concerned about environmental considerations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the title and the purpose of the whole bill, that is really what it comes down to. It is not about ensuring that the industry generates the sort of income that many in the industry have talked about, which is billions upon billions of dollars. It is not unrealistic to suggest that, potentially, the industry could bring to this country between $8 billion and $10 billion, given the massive coastline we have. But that will not happen, because of the control and restrictions we are placing on this fledgling industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI always find it ironic, when I read a bill like this, and there is the word \u201Cplan\u201D\u2014 \u201CWe have a plan.\u201D That comes up constantly. I throw this question open to the Committee: what happens if the plan is wrong? If we allowed people all over the country to determine what was appropriate for themselves, they would work it out, do the thing, and would not be constrained or controlled by a plan. This is what I call the driftnet approach\u2014that is, one size or a huge driftnet that snares everything, and that is what one must do because somebody in Wellington, or somebody somewhere, has said: \u201CThis is the plan, this is the legislation, and you will follow it.\u201D Why not allow the regions to develop their own plans, systems, and controls if necessary. Why could we have not done that, instead of having this top-down approach in the form of this so-called Aquaculture Reform Bill? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EIt is a complete and utter misnomer to call it a reform bill. It has nothing to do with reform, but this industry has everything to do with the future. There was enthusiasm amongst the men\u2014and the odd woman was involved, too\u2014for the future of the industry. The select committee went around the country talking to members of the industry, and some asked why the Minister had not come out to talk to them. Most of them were hugely enthusiastic about the future of the industry, although there were huge concerns and the select committee has attempted to address them. But the concerns I have about the security of tenure and the role of the Department of Conservation with regard to the bill have essentially been ignored. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a212c4cba9934ffcaf358ab8f60fdfa8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a212c4cba9934ffcaf358ab8f60fdfa8\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to the title, I wonder whether the bill could be called the \u201CMishmash Reform Bill\u201D or the \u201CGift and Grievance Bill\u201D, because that is what the legislation will establish\u2014it will establish a 20 percent gift. Contrary to comments made by a previous speaker, National did not set that precedent way back in 1992. There was no precedent set to give M\u0101ori 20 percent of a new area that has been applied for in order to carry out aquaculture. Clearly, that is a gift, and I reiterate the concerns expressed by my colleague Dr Lynda Scott. We were supposed to have settled all grievances related to the fisheries in the deed of settlement. She read that out, and it was quite clear that that was it\u2014the finish. Now we are seeing through the process of this bill that that is not the case. So the public have cause to be duly alarmed, and they will be. This will all come back to bite the current Government, because it is totally unacceptable to be making a gift of 20 percent of the area to M\u0101ori on the establishment of new applications. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI see that the iwi organisations are defined by referring back to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. They are drawn from mandated iwi organisations, and there are opportunities to withdraw from them. It states that in the case of the iwi of Hauraki or the iwi of Te Aroha, any iwi of a group may withdraw if it so chooses from the mandated iwi organisation of the group. That signals that iwi can withdraw from the current organisations. We have seen in this bill\u2014the \u201CMishmash Reform Bill\u201D\u2014that under the disputes resolution processes in it, iwi can compete. Because they are all going to want some of the aquaculture asset, they will compete. So if an iwi is currently in an organisation, it may want to break away from it and then compete for part of the 20 percent of the space that may be up for grabs. Iwi will certainly want to do that. Aquaculture is an industry that is on the rise, although we have lost a huge amount of capability overseas. Because of the moratorium and the time it has taken to get things through the process, a lot of our competent, capable, experienced, and specialist people have gone overseas, have taken their expertise to places like Australia and elsewhere, and are setting up aquaculture activities there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThis legislation is about gifts and grievance, because the M\u0101ori Land Court will be clogged up with grievances as iwi dispute among themselves over who has rights, and to what. Of course, members will be aware that the iwi organisations, as defined in the Foreshore and Seabed Act, come under the definition of \u201CM\u0101ori organisation\u201D in the taxation Act, which allows them to have a taxation rate of 19.5c in the dollar. That does not provide a level playing field, so it is another preference that is being shown to M\u0101ori, although it is not accorded to other operators of aquaculture activities. So there is one standard for one group as opposed to another. There definitely is not one rule for all, and we see plenty of examples of that throughout this bill. [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove is trying to interject. He may like to take a call. Although he has been exhorted to take a call, he has not done so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThis bill is so messy that in clause 111(4) it states: \u201CThe purpose of this section is to present alternative arrangements for ease of reference, and nothing in this section limits or affects the other provisions of this Part.\u201D We have all sorts of listings of different parts of the bill for ease of reference, which clearly illustrates that it is a bit of a mess. It is very hard to follow, because so many different Acts are being amended. If we look at the heading of clause 141, we see it referred to the Resource Management Act 1997 and the date was then amended to 1991. For some reason the Minister must have thought there was a Resource Management Act of 1997, although I am not aware of it. Perhaps he may like to take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022 data-id=\u00226b2775fd018d4e359b6e116e4733b94b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b2775fd018d4e359b6e116e4733b94b\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa98479121f745e1895225a9f157793a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa98479121f745e1895225a9f157793a\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E Much has been made in this debate of the fisheries settlement post-1992, the aquaculture settlement where M\u0101ori have been passed, for free, 20 percent of the aquaculture space throughout this country as a broad-brush approach to appeasing their concern over the seabed and foreshore issue. We have explored that. We have examined the facts that pre-1992\u2014and that was not very long ago\u2014M\u0101ori were still able to claim aquaculture space. In fact, five iwi have already done that successfully. The list in the back of the Maori Fisheries Act adds another 70-odd iwi that may soon be coming over the hill to make a pre-1992 claim. So we have not seen the end of the aquaculture treaty settlement process. It will go on for some years now. We will sit and watch, on the Opposition benches, for a few months and see the whole process turn to custard for the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, for the Minister of Fisheries, and for the Minister for treaty settlements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI would like, though, to bring members back to an issue that has not been discussed at length during the debate on the bill, and that is the degree to which the Minister of Conservation has powers to gazump or thwart the process of setting up marine farms and aquaculture management areas. There are actually three areas where the Minister of Conservation can come in and thwart a marine farm proposal. The Minister of Conservation has the power to direct regional councils in relation to the allocation of space in the coastal marine area. First, the department, through the Minister, can be an objector, under the Resource Management Act, to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. That is the first opportunity\u2014the department can be an objector to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. If the department fails there, when a marine farmer puts in for a consent to establish a marine farm in that aquaculture management area, his or her plans can be objected to by the department. So the department can, secondly, be an objector under the Resource Management Act to the issuing of an individual consent. So that is the department\u2019s second swipe at marine farmers\u2019 interests\u2014being an objector under the Resource Management Act to an individual consent. The third opportunity for the department is that the Minister of Conservation can effectively veto an allocation at the last hurdle, under the guise of \u201Cgiving effect to Government policy\u201D\u2014that is a quote\u2014if the department initially fails at the first two opportunities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe are quite concerned that the allocation of aquaculture space would be at the whim of the Government policy of the day. I was quite intrigued to see that it is not just Government policy that could torpedo an aquaculture application but, in fact, a requirement to meet some sort of historical treaty grievance in an aquaculture management area. That should be of concern to the Committee. It is not fair that the department and the Minister of Conservation should have three opportunities to interfere, with effective vetos, in the coastal marine area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u00226f9c5b0e7fef4527b2c56955c708b6a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f9c5b0e7fef4527b2c56955c708b6a0\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222a65e07ff9c340658bd5a24fa7d4cd3e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022475a64e47ab4450982e7c0995189a960\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000199\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002286778d19affb4f76a68736bdbd3d2a21\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002221605de21e46436e91c6abc74c19e51a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3085653abab444a8f945bbc0ec2dca5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3085653abab444a8f945bbc0ec2dca5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 4), the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 5), the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill, the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 320 in my name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002234e5b54e83ef461097dcfc4cad291981\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000201\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000202\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222d024b3f773f43c29f2d201b8447b6b9\u0022\u003EThird Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fd859093195945e690c6b481d470043f\u0022\u003EThird Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022038ec27b7d644eb1ac35857487253dd0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022038ec27b7d644eb1ac35857487253dd0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I advise members of the House that at the conclusion of the third reading debate I will put the bills as separate questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00224bca3d37b37e456e8c3245baafa90303\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bca3d37b37e456e8c3245baafa90303\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Resource Management Bill (No 4), the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 5), the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill, the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThese bills create a new regime designed to allow the rational development of the industry while ensuring that the impacts of new aquaculture activity can be fully considered in relation to all coastal marine users. We have acted to protect the coastline for all New Zealanders. The whole purpose of the reform is to provide users with clarity and certainty, which were not there before. The aquaculture industry has been held up under the moratorium for a number of years, after an overload of marine-farming applications left councils and communities struggling to assess projects and keep up with demand. The aquaculture reform bills secure a sustainable future for New Zealand\u2019s aquaculture. I am confident they balance economic development, environmental sustainability, and community concern. The bills make the Resource Management Act the main legislation for managing aquaculture. That will enable councils to effectively manage aquaculture and encourage the industry to develop in a sustainable way. There was need for change. We listened hard to industry concerns and have responded, providing them with greater flexibility, certainty, and fairness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003ELet me firstly thank the industry, which has set aside any unease it may have had and worked in a highly cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point. I also thank the Primary Production Committee, and the officials who supported the committee, for working under great time pressure so that the moratorium could be lifted on the due date. Their work has helped us reach our goal of having a number of bills that support, clarify, and define aquaculture\u2019s place in the marine environment. To that group I add the very cooperative attitude of local government, which, yesterday and today, is working with the Ministry for the Environment to make sure that the implementation of the legislation is highly successful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bills also address M\u0101ori interests in commercial marine farming space by providing iwi, where possible, with 20 percent of marine-farming space allocated since 1992, and 20 percent of any future new space. That is an important step. Settling contemporary commercial claims removes a potentially huge impediment to progress and certainty in the industry. It is clearly in line with the 1992 fisheries settlement, aquaculture being the unfinished business of that deal. The 2002 Waitangi Tribunal report entitled Ahu Moana: The Aquaculture and Marine Farming Report states plainly that Doug Kidd, who was the then National Government\u2019s Minister of Fisheries and Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, had forbidden officials from including marine farming in that settlement. It is time that National members put aside their obsessions. We need to talk about solutions, not empty slogans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EAlthough it has taken time to reach this point, I am confident that we have come up with a workable solution that will take us into the future and will see the exciting potential of the marine-farming industry realised. I am delighted to commend the legislation to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022af9e3545221c4d2aab86b137e5ee450c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af9e3545221c4d2aab86b137e5ee450c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E Aquaculture is an exciting industry, full of potential, that in recent years has been totally stifled by the Labour Government. The Government\u2019s response to challenges regarding the future of aquaculture was to impose a moratorium. Then, when it was still bereft of ideas, it took the opportunity to extend that moratorium. I am pleased today to be associated with legislation that finally lifts the moratorium on aquaculture and allows this exciting industry to develop to its potential. It is potentially a billion-dollar export industry for New Zealand. We parliamentarians have a duty today to pass legislation that allows that industry to get on and do the job. I sadly think this legislation will not prove to be of huge assistance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIt became evident to the Primary Production Committee that other countries embrace the potential of aquaculture. Committee members heard about New Zealand marine farmers\u2014both large and small operators\u2014who have now relocated part of their enterprises to Australia. Australia makes it easy for aquaculture, and New Zealand makes it hard. Representatives of other companies came to the select committee and talked about those companies\u2019 substantial potential investment in countries like Chile.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis legislation still makes it costly to operate in our environment. It is costly to get a consent. We have a process now whereby aquaculture will be within the regime of the Resource Management Act, but that means it will pick up the warts and the difficulties still associated with that Act. It means that anybody who proposes aquaculture must be involved in a consent process that gives everybody the chance to have a say. People who have no standing at all still have the potential to object to an aquacultural proposal. What is even worse is that, in many cases, some of those environmental organisations, whether they are based in Auckland or in Queenstown, can make an objection to proposals for aquaculture in, for example, the Marlborough Sounds. If they form themselves correctly, they can actually apply for and obtain legal aid to do so. That is a nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIf one manages to get through the Resource Management Act process, one still has to contend with the Department of Conservation. In this legislation that the Government will pass today, we stupidly have given a provision whereby the Minister of Conservation can veto a proposal. That will not give the industry the certainty that people want.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI move now to the most contentious part of this legislation\u2014the Government\u2019s decision to gift to M\u0101ori up to 40 percent of new space\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b34d555c1cee4741a788ad27880a9d1c\u0022\u003EJanet Mackey\u003C/span\u003E: That is not true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d210ff9b925494595c68710ed4b0b2b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: The member says that is not true. She should have paid more attention and not doodled at the select committee. Under this legislation, M\u0101ori will get up to 40 percent of new space to be created, so that at the end of a 10-year period they will have 20 percent of the aquaculture space that has been created since 1992. I say to Janet Mackey that that is the absolute truth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, has pushed this legislation through the Labour Cabinet and caucus without foundation and without principle. The saddest thing is that we are now seeing a proliferation of the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry. M\u0101ori themselves came before the select committee and said that they would accept this gift but that they did not see it as a settlement, because they had not been involved in the process. We are gifting this huge resource to M\u0101ori, who will come back and say they are entitled to more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI take the opportunity to correct yet again the Minister, who claimed that there was unfinished business associated with the 1992 fisheries settlement. The select committee sought proof of this unfinished business, but was unable to obtain any proof of it at all, yet the Minister came to the House today and again said that Doug Kidd had forbidden the inclusion of aquaculture in the discussions. That is not so. That has been proven, and that information was given to the select committee. What Doug Kidd was not prepared to do was to allow discussion on aquaculture coming into the quota management system. Treasury had a report at the time proposing that aquaculture come into the quota management system, and Doug Kidd said that, no, that was not on the agenda. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229ac8b479bad4ff987675e2028e1ec0b\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: He took it off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c8df4c8abc84adcb1dccd59b338a25d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: He certainly took that off the agenda. He said that aquaculture would not come into the quota management system. But David Benson-Pope came to the House and misinformed us, saying that Doug Kidd would not allow aquaculture to be discussed. That is absolutely untrue and, what is more, the member knows it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EPart of the documentation that was presented to the select committee was the Gardiner and Parata report that I referred to earlier. I will read today the comments of Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan. I respect his words. He negotiated fairly and honestly on the Ng\u0101i Tahu settlement. He was asked in 2002 about his recollection of whether aquaculture had been deliberately included in, or excluded from, the 1992 settlement. In answer to that question he said: \u201CThe settlement was about commercial fisheries rights. Such rights include aquaculture.\u201D That is the National Party\u2019s stand in the House today. The 1992 settlement was full and final, it was signed by M\u0101ori as full and final, yet the Government is undoing that work today with the passing of the aquaculture reform legislation. We are extending the grievance industry for generations; M\u0101ori will want another bite of the cherry, and that is wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIf there had been any truth to this folklore around unfinished business, then there would have been a paper trail. A large number of people were involved in the discussions around the 1992 settlement. To its credit, Te Puni K\u014Dkiri went back and interviewed those people. It asked them about their recollections of this unfinished business, and collectively, to a person, they reported to Gardiner and Parata that there had been no mention of aquaculture. It certainly had not been put to one side, as incorrectly stated by the Minister of Fisheries. There is no unfinished business.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWe are seeing today legislation that is designed entirely and manipulatively to rid the Government of its huge embarrassment around the seabed and foreshore legislation. I am saddened to see that not only Labour is pushing this legislation through; it is doing it with the support of New Zealand First, the Green Party, and United Future. Those parties were all represented at the select committee. Those members were there when National members asked the hard questions about the unfinished business. They were there when the information promised to us simply evaporated. Yet they are prepared to contribute to this folklore, and to pass legislation today that hugely extends the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis legislation will not be good for aquaculture. We know that the proper process established by the legislation will not work, and that M\u0101ori will be given bits and pieces all around the coastline that are of little value to them. We know that the legislation has been poorly thought out. Other members of the select committee said that to National members around the select committee table, yet they have come into the House today and are being whipped into line to vote for legislation that I do not believe they sincerely believe in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7124159ae93459492a3bd0b6b168268\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7124159ae93459492a3bd0b6b168268\u0022\u003EJANET MACKEY (Labour\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E The chairperson of the Primary Production Committee keeps referring to the lack of a paper trail regarding the inclusion in this settlement of M\u0101ori\u2019s 20 percent. All that he needs to do is to read the Waitangi Tribunal report, and if he wants a paper trail, I am happy to table that report at the end of my speech. Doug Kidd thought that Treasury wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system, and he personally forbade Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions of the deed of settlement, because it would have confused an already complex set of negotiations. As Mike Moore always said: \u201CIf they don\u2019t hear it the first time, say it another 99 times and it may get through.\u201D I think that is very good evidence, on the record, in the Waitangi Tribunal report, that this matter was not considered at the time of the fisheries deed of settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI am very surprised at the voting patterns of parties in the House today. I will probably exclude ACT from that, because we all know there is no rhyme nor reason to the way ACT votes. I am very fond of Gerrard Eckhoff and I think he is a very fine member of the select committee, but ACT is entirely in another ether when it comes to logical decisions about the best way to vote and what is good for people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI had a phone call this morning from one of the people from the industry who worked very hard with the committee. He said to me: \u201CJanet, can you tell me why National is voting against this legislation? We came to the select committee with a wish list, and the select committee, the Minister, and the officials have delivered what we asked for. This legislation is good for the industry, so why is National voting against it?\u201D. I said to that person: \u201CI think it is a cunning political strategy on behalf of the National Party. It was probably engineered by Don Brash, and I think it is probably going to have the same result as every other decision that Don Brash has made!\u201D. I told him: \u201CI think you need to ask the National Party why it is not supporting it.\u201D He said: \u201CYou know what? I don\u2019t think I\u2019ll bother.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EI have been very disappointed in the debate that has carried on over the course of yesterday and today, and I have been very disappointed to hear the select committee chairman deliberately, I believe, misrepresent the facts when it comes to the 20 percent for M\u0101ori. Let us be quite clear that at the end of the day M\u0101ori will get 20 percent of the aquaculture. They will not get 40 percent. It may be that in order to address what has already been allocated they will need to get 40 percent of new applications in some areas. But to pretend to people listening or to people in the gallery that the Labour Government is giving M\u0101ori more than they should ever get is simply the \u014Crewa speech all over again. It has been done, and it failed. I suggest to National members that they look at this legislation for what it is: an honest attempt to include all New Zealanders in the opportunity that this new fishery provides for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EOne of the most interesting votes in the House has been that of Tariana Turia. I hope her supporters around the country are listening to her cast her vote with ACT and National. I think that is a very good portent of what the future would hold for M\u0101oridom if Tariana Turia was returned to this House. That a member of the M\u0101ori Party can cast her vote with parties that are continually scratching the sore in the hope they will benefit from it at the next election says to me that M\u0101ori Party activists or supporters around the country should be very, very scared. I have no idea why that member is voting against this legislation, which is good legislation for M\u0101ori. But I was never too sure just what bee Tariana Turia had in her bonnet on a certain day, and I have no idea what has possessed her this time. But I say to M\u0101ori around the country, who as a result of this legislation will be able to participate in aquaculture in the future, that their interests have been well-served by Labour, by the Progressives, by New Zealand First, and by the Greens. M\u0101ori should take note. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f978a67480ac4e709edb91fc79d16144\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f978a67480ac4e709edb91fc79d16144\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I have listened with interest to the speakers who preceded me, and I do not want to be mean-spirited but to thank and congratulate the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee, the Hon David Carter, because I think that as the chairperson he did an excellent job. I want to thank my colleagues who worked diligently alongside me. I do not know how they would have got on without me, but we got there in the end. But since the select committee hearing I have been disappointed with David Carter\u2019s comments, and I think that in many ways, as Janet Mackey said, he has become a victim of his own success. In fact, all that was required to be delivered by this legislation was delivered, and David Carter introduced to the select committee a very innovative way of dealing with problems that\u2014and this is sincere praise\u2014I appreciate and applaud. That is the ability to bring in people who are involved commercially in an industry to work directly with officials. That works very, very well. So it is no surprise that as chairperson, David Carter has been able, through some changes and with the assistance of officials, to achieve legislation that is accepted by the aquaculture industry and the players within that industry. With due respect, it is legislation they are very happy with. I just wish that Mr Carter would accept the praise that I am sure others are happy to give to him, and would not make mean-spirited speeches that, first, he does not believe in and, second, are not worthy of him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EThe aquaculture industry is indeed an exciting industry. We have heard Mr Eckhoff talk about how although it could earn many billions of dollars into the future, that will not happen. I am sure that it will happen as time goes on, but the industry has not reached the first billion yet. I am sure it will do so, and this legislation will not stop it from doing that. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that an industry that takes up public space for private profit\u2014and profit is not a bad word; we believe in profits, and we say we have to have profits, and we have to have this industry\u2014should, according to the ACT party, have hardly any regulation, at all. It is demeaning to our hard-working bureaucrats or advisers\u2014call them what we will\u2014that such a situation could exist. I want to praise those people for the minefield they have worked through in order to bring this legislation to fruition. There are multiple uses for the space that marine farms will occupy\u2014not the least being its use by the public of New Zealand for swimming, fishing, or whatever else. All of those things had to be taken into account, and the advisers have done that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that throughout the submission process people talked about moving to Australia, Argentina, or somewhere else around the world, because New Zealand was far too restrictive on the aquaculture industry. On further questioning and on talking privately to people, one usually finds that a very interesting thing happens, which New Zealand First actually applauds\u2014that is, that those people are going out and increasing their holdings in aquaculture farms throughout the world. They are not selling up their assets in New Zealand and moving to another country; they are retaining their assets in New Zealand and using the expertise they have gained here to increase their holdings in other countries. New Zealand First says that that is fantastic. It is what we encourage people to do. It is what our entrepreneurs in New Zealand should do, and we applaud it. We just hope and trust\u2014and I am sure it is so\u2014that they bring the profits earned from overseas countries back to New Zealand and increase the living standards of us all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c21ffb177a74593a405ab157fdd8739\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: What does Winston say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdcddbd87b4c42a3bde0ec6c635238ad\u0022\u003ER DOUG WOOLERTON\u003C/span\u003E: He has not had much to say on this legislation, as a matter of fact. He rang me a wee while ago just to make sure that what I was saying was OK, but he has not had much to say himself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EI want to talk briefly about the business of giving 20 percent of the aquaculture space to M\u0101ori. We have stated many times\u2014and this is that last time I will do it\u2014that it is based on a precedent set in the fisheries legislation in 1992, which was pushed through the House by the previous National Government, and which my leader, Winston Peters, voted against. Having set that precedent, it is inconceivable that this industry could go ahead without a 20 percent allocation of space\u2014not of aquaculture but of space\u2014to M\u0101ori. If that were done M\u0101ori would immediately challenge that in the courts, and they would win. So New Zealand First says that we accept that, and that these things have to go forward in a sensible manner. We applaud the Government for accepting reality and moving on the issue. I know my ACT colleagues have said, in a somewhat derogatory way, that I have said we are trying to get away from a fight. Well, it is not a case of getting away from a fight in a cowardly way; it is about foreseeing a potential problem and overcoming it. I think that the Government\u2014in fact, any Government\u2014should be applauded for doing that. I say hallelujah, and there should be more of it. It is not a matter of running away from a fight; it is about foreseeing and acting on a problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003EIt is also a fact that when I have talked about these situations on behalf of New Zealand First, I have been accused of perpetuating the problem of treaty grievance. New Zealand First rejects that totally, and we want to say quite clearly now that it is settlements like this that will avoid problems in the treaty process. This legislation is a sensible recognition of the facts of life in New Zealand in the 21st century. We do not want to go back to the dark old days when almost everything that was done caused problems with our fellow New Zealanders, particularly with those who are M\u0101ori. So I reject the notion that New Zealand First is running away from some sort of a fight. We are not known for doing that. We commend the Government for the sensible inclusion in this legislation of things that are inevitable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u00224fcf7f288d4a4968879433a8fb83df1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fcf7f288d4a4968879433a8fb83df1a\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Before I get into my speech, I have to say that after listening to Mr Woolerton\u2019s speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I think he is almost overcome by the spirit of Christmas, with his charitable rendition of what the Government is doing. His normally dogged nature and criticisms did not come forth. However, we are all somewhat different from one another. I never really thought that in my time in this House I would debate a bill that had an entire part dedicated to fixing up the other parts. Part 6 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill was totally dedicated to fixing up the other six parts\u2014there were seven parts in that bill. I find that to be absolutely extraordinary. That bill, may I remind the House, was titled the Aquaculture Reform Bill. So if it was about reform, why have we put into legislation a whole part that is dedicated to the future fixing up of the mess that we are, tragically, just about to pass? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ELet me make it very clear that both I and the ACT party, which I am proud to serve, are absolutely in favour of the wonderful aquaculture industry\u2014that fledgling, creative industry. It reminds me very much of the agricultural industry in its very, very early days when somebody decided to take to the skies with stuff called superphosphate. It had never been done anywhere else, but someone decided to try something that was interesting, innovative, and creative. I do not really even have to tell Mr Cosgrove how successful that industry was. But in the agricultural industry that initiative did not come about as a result of constraints, controls, and plans; it came about because innovative, creative people decided that that was for them, and away they went. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe Primary Production Committee met some of the people involved in the aquaculture industry\u2014and I must say that the select committee did a great job going out and actually talking with the participants in the industry, as distinct from the Minister, who stayed in Wellington. We met some wonderful people, and we could see the enthusiasm and the dedication that they had for the industry. Rather sadly, we also heard from those people that in Blenheim, I think it was, at least five people from this rather small industry have left New Zealand to go overseas. That was just in one area. How many other people, how much expertise, and how much capital have left New Zealand to go to Australia and Chile, where the industry is absolutely burgeoning? Anybody can go to Chile and buy space. Yes, people can buy it\u2014the very thing I have been advocating. They can buy space. It is not given away; one can purchase space just like anybody can purchase land. Why is the logic of doing that so difficult for this Government to grasp?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022497697c0fef843cba7cad96ee0c637f5\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: ACT selling off something else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b22bdbcdb76c4011932f42051ea47627\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF\u003C/span\u003E: It actually works, I say to the Minister. He should try it. He should try doing something about understanding the realities of life in other countries that have shown us the way forward, by showing us that security of tenure absolutely guarantees a successful industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ESadly, we now have a situation in New Zealand where, in 20 years\u2019 time, people will not know whether they can continue in the aquaculture industry. Those of us who have been in industry for a long time\u2014in my case, for about 35 years\u2014know that 20 years is a very, very short passage of time. Mr Samuels knows that. He has been a fisher, and he has owned motels, and so on. He knows that 20 years of development goes by very, very quickly. After only 20 years the participants who have started off in the aquaculture industry will have to go cap in hand to a regional council and ask whether they can please continue. A council that knows, by and large, nothing about the industry will say that yes, the marine farmer can continue in it, but the council will specify the rules and the regulations that he or she must abide by. A council will impose certain cost structures on marine farmers, believing that because they are in business, they must therefore be wealthy. Well, what utter nonsense that is! Most people in industry\u2014and it does not matter which particular industry it is\u2014struggle. They struggle to pay the wages. We heard my new colleague Kenneth Wang talk about having to go without paying himself wages. That is so typical of businesses. Many, many people in industry in this country do not make a lot of money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI do not notice terribly many marine farmers or aquaculturalists out there who drive around in Rolls-Royces and have huge amounts of property elsewhere. Aquaculture is a very difficult industry to survive in. In Australia it is rocketing away, and in Chile and elsewhere in South America it is doing extremely well. But New Zealand has decided to tie up the industry in red tape and make it even more difficult for the people of this country who want to get involved in that excellent industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EOne of the great problems that the aquaculture industry, even now, is recognising is the role of the Department of Conservation, which is known commonly throughout New Zealand as the \u201Cneighbour from hell\u201D. The Department of Conservation will totally dominate the industry because it has been given veto rights. The department has been given the right to say to a regional council, when a company or an individual wants some space, that it will have a look at the space first, and determine whether it wants that space for conservation purposes. The applicant may then get whatever space the department does not want. It is well known, of course, right throughout New Zealand that the department is controlled by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and that the society\u2019s former chief executive, Kevin Smith, now runs the Minister\u2019s office. The department\u2019s fingerprints are all over this legislation. It gets the first and second bites of the cherry. I have absolutely no problem with the department being involved in the management of marine reserves. But let us give the industry an equal chance to get established and show that it can do a wonderful job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI am not joking when I say that potentially the aquaculture industry could be an $8 billion to $10 billion industry. The feral fishery is in huge decline; everybody knows that. So if we want to eat seafood\u2014and we do; we all know how good it is for us\u2014we will have to look differently at the way we do things out on the ocean, just as we had to look differently at the way we did things on the land when we first came to this country. If we had to apply every 20 years for a right to farm on land in this country, nobody would bother to do so. That will happen, I suspect, in this fledgling industry, as I call it. I certainly wish the aquaculture industry every success, and the ACT party wishes it every success. I had hoped that this bill would set the industry on a path to the future so that it can invest with real confidence, not just in the water but in the infrastructure on shore, and in developments overseas as it finds its markets. I suspect, with regret, that that will not happen following the passage of this legislation through the House today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff8e92cb77964013a5b2ec06eae957b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff8e92cb77964013a5b2ec06eae957b9\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The aquaculture regulations up until this point have been a source of enormous frustration for marine farmers. In greenshell mussels they have a unique species that is endemic to New Zealand. It is found nowhere else in the world. It has fantastic market opportunities. But those opportunities have been frustrated by a mixture of regulations, and other things. We have had a gold rush. As soon as people realised the potential for aquaculture, there was a gold rush mentality for water space. We had moratoriums, and we had regulations imposed by the regional councils and by the Ministry of Fisheries. The mixture of regulations, controls, and moratoriums has led to confusion and delays, and it has led to frustration. Many people in the aquaculture game have looked overseas. I have colleagues who have gone to South Australia to look for opportunities, and they have been welcomed with open arms. They have gone there and found that instead of facing barriers, they have been confronted with a Government that has said: \u201CLook, we have already done the science. We have allocated spaces that we believe are good for aquaculture. Please come and develop aquaculture here.\u201D They have welcomed Kiwi ingenuity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI know of one group that successfully applied for 300 hectares of sheltered water space. It is absolutely unknown in this country. They also got a land-based facility, for virtually no cost. This is extraordinary. What is it that Australia, Chile, and other countries can do that we cannot? I would have to say that the first draft of this legislation certainly was not the answer to that question. Submitters came to us and said that they would rather have the existing situation than the scenario outlined in the first draft of this legislation. So it is very gratifying to see reports in the newspapers from marine farmers now saying that this is very good legislation, and thanking the Government and the Primary Production Committee for changing the legislation from being unworkable, into something that is now seen to be quite good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI think we can all take pride in the fact that submitters have had a profound impact on the legislation. This is democracy in action. This is people who are affected by the legislation coming to where the decisions are made and being able to have an impact on that legislation, which in turn affects them. I think it has been a very, very good process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI would like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee, and particularly the chair, David Carter, who I think did an excellent job. I believe that we treated this problem in a non-partisan way. We accepted the problems as they were presented to us, and I think we worked in a very collegial manner with the committee staff and the officials to come up with a non-partisan resolution to the problems. Obviously, we put on our party political hats when we come into the House, and maybe that is unfortunate but that is the way politics goes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI also would particularly like to thank the officials, a number of whom are here today. They have all worked extremely diligently, under very tight time constraints, and I think they have done a very good job. I say the same to the committee clerks, who did an excellent job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThis bill addresses quite a number of different needs\u2014a lot of which we have heard about during the debate. But not least of these needs have been those of the wider community and of the environment itself. People are concerned about the ecological sustainability of marine farming. These people have legitimate concerns. Marine farming is not a panacea; it is a very good use of water space, but it is not the only use of water space. There are competing needs. We have recreational users, boaties, and people like that. We also have the environment itself. What happens to the plankton on which the filter-feeders feed? There are visual impacts, and a whole range of things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EUp until now\u2014before this legislation comes into play\u2014the regulations have meant that anybody who has objected to a marine farm has had to oppose an application on a case by case basis, because it is a resource consent process. Individuals who oppose a marine farm have had to turn up at their local council offices, day after day, opposing different applications, and they are suffering from burnout. But they have had legitimate concerns. The good thing about this legislation is that it puts all those concerns into one big hearing. It says: \u201CLet\u2019s get an area\u2014we will call it an aquaculture management area, or an AMA\u2014in which people can apply for space for farming, and outside of which they cannot apply.\u201D They can change the coastal management plan, but that is a much longer term process. It is a higher hurdle to jump over. But what this legislation is doing is giving people certainty\u2014not just the marine farmers, but the community as well. We have the science upfront. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EPeople who have an established farm also get a degree of certainty from this legislation. It is one of the things they really wanted. But what they wanted was a right of renewal in perpetuity. Of course, with public open space, with the commons, we simply cannot do that. But I think what we have done is to give them a degree of certainty that is fair. We have said: \u201CYou get a coastal occupation lease or right and that allows you to farm that space for 20 years. At the end of that 20 years, if you have been a good corporate citizen\u2014in other words, you haven\u2019t breached the conditions of your permit\u2014then you go to the front of the queue. You get your permit renewal application heard first. If you are successful you get another 20 years. If you are not successful, obviously the space you have been occupying goes to tender.\u201D The only other way that space can be lost is if the community, through the regional council, says: \u201CWe no longer want that to be used for marine farming.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EIt also gives marine farmers a message that they are using that space only by the grace of the community. It is commons, and what we have done is introduce the idea of resource rentals. People occupying public open space pay for the privilege. We have also said that they have had to be good corporate citizens during their incumbency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EProbably the most contentious issue surrounding the legislation has been the 20 percent to iwi M\u0101ori. I have discussed that issue a number of occasions during the debate and I do not want to go into it further, although I do reiterate the problem I see with the Government trying to legislate for a full and final settlement without having had full consultation with iwi M\u0101ori. There is also the problem that the 1992 deed of settlement stated that of new species going into the quota management system, 20 percent will go to M\u0101ori. These are not species going into the quota management system. It is not a trigger for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThree practical problems remain to be resolved. One is the patchwork quilt effect, the second is the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee, and the third is the representative space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI conclude by wishing my colleagues, the officials, and the select committee people the very happiest of Christmases. To you, personally, Mr Speaker, as this is your last Christmas in this House, after approximately 100 years I think, I wish you all the best in your new job. I wish you well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f7f42b356fa4b6d9b194b6b04a724b7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The member was doing very well, right up until that phrase!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022747220a292014234b27fe9c65e23ec4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022747220a292014234b27fe9c65e23ec4a\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the third reading of this legislation. When I look back on the day when I first walked into the Primary Production Committee to look at this legislation and then to where I am today, I see a tremendous transformation in a piece of work that originally gave no possibility to an industry. It has been transformed. I wish to put on record today that we are very pleased with the progress that has taken place. As I see it this legislation is enabling legislation and it has brought certainty for now and the future. The legislation has brought clarity to a whole range of issues, and for that we can be extremely thankful that it is going through the House today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe legislation is based on reform, and it reforms the administrative parts, as we have heard and seen in the debate on it. It does not so much reform the industry, but, rather, the mechanisms needed when the moratorium is lifted in a few days\u2019 time. If I recall correctly, it was United Future, with the Government, that extended the moratorium to 31 December to ensure that time was made for this legislatio to be written. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EAs a test of how satisfactory legislation is, one has to ask whether all the players who are mentioned, and for whom the legislation is set up, are contented, happy, and looking forward to its passage through Parliament. As I see it, virtually everybody is contented and of a mind that this is good legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the farmers, they see this as far better than anything else they could have imagined. In fact, when the expert witnesses were before us they said: \u201CLook, we will accept this as it is.\u201D, and since that day, until this day, there have been many modifications of greater gain for them. The industry is bringing forth hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy, and I can see, as can a lot of people, that it will raise itself to be a flourishing industry. We salute the industry, now that it has the legislation on its side, and encourage it to go for it, to make heavy investments, and to show not only to us as New Zealanders but also to the world what it can do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EI do not believe that the present farmers will be damaged in any way. Their space, as they have it, will be deemed to be aquaculture management areas, so they will immediately continue in business for the next 20 years. If they remain good farmers, then they will continue and will remain good farmers. They will automatically be asked to carry on in their applications. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe new farmers from when the legislation is passed will have plenty of room to manoeuvre. They can apply privately to do whatever they wish, as well as wait for the regional councils to lead them into aquaculture management areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003ERegional councils are another group that we cannot take out of the equation. We have to ask whether they are satisfied by this legislation, and the answer to that is a resounding yes. It gives them the wherewithal and the mechanisms to ensure that they satisfy both the people around them in terms of their constituents and the places in which they live, as well as the farmers. They now have a set of rules that they can work out and apply. I believe that the regional councils will be able to say\u2014and have already said publicly\u2014that this bill is good for them. It allows them to get on with developing their regions, which is a vital issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EFor instance, when we were visiting down in Havelock I heard the comment that Havelock now has the lowest rate of unemployment in New Zealand. I am not sure whether that is fact, but at least someone down there told us that. It was based entirely around this industry flourishing in that town. I am sure others in the House would want to compete with that, but that is what we were told. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWe have to ask ourselves whether this is good legislation for the fishers and for the public. The answer to that is also yes. Commercial fishers are not losing out anything here. Their views are totally at the centre of this legislation. Customary fishers have their rights to be looked after and they will be listened to. Likewise for recreational fishers and those who are into recreation of various types\u2014all of those people are being satisfied. Are M\u0101ori and iwi satisfied by this legislation? United Future believes that the answer is yes. Their settlement will help to support a healthy aquaculture industry in this land. I believe that by settling with them we then advance the entire business into the many billions of dollars that it will develop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EI want to end on a note of thanking the chair of the Primary Production Committee. I was a stranger to that committee when I arrived. I got to know some very good people on the committee and it was a pleasure to work with each and every one of them. I met the officials for the first time either on a boat at sea or in the select committee room. It was great to work with them. They worked tirelessly and I wish them, in particular, a very good Christmas because they need a break after all of this. United Future is really pleased that this legislation will pass into law today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u002214af32940c8e46faa5565f6b89736e37\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214af32940c8e46faa5565f6b89736e37\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I want to begin by picking up from where the previous speaker left off, and to thank the ministry officials and our clerks. I thank them for the work they did under great pressure of time. I also thank them for enduring\u2014and I am sure they know what I mean when I say this\u2014the Primary Production Committee, especially the lengthy dissertations from Mr Woolerton. At various times of the evening he regaled us with various theses he had on various issues, particularly to do with salsa and seafood. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe third reading debate has been very interesting. I have listened to the Opposition speakers and they have spent their time criticising Government members for not taking calls. Well, on this side we actually wanted to listen to and analyse what was being said over there, and to progress the Government\u2019s business. What did we get? The Opposition rolled out the big guns. We heard from Phil Heatley. The Opposition dredged up Sandra Goudie from the bottom of the sea\u2014the orange roughy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229faa425b2eba4fdf846163c66353bf15\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! No\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba3326946daf4ecda4b36c90cf8efe4e\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. And what did the Opposition have to say on this legislation? I commend Mr David Carter for his leadership of the select committee, but I have to say that some of his comments were right around the edges. He knows as well as I do\u2014and all the select committee members do\u2014that the 20 percent to M\u0101ori, which was one of the two major issues, is unfinished business. It is unfinished business from, and progresses the spirit of, the 1992 deed. He knows that. He knows what his former Minister of fisheries and M\u0101ori affairs was on about; the Waitangi Tribunal referred to that. He also knows that the other major issue was security of tenure, and that that has been dealt with. Now, as the Green member has said, we have security of tenure for 20 years, with options and rights of renewal for our marine farmers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI thank my colleagues, who I know are enjoying my speech. I thank the members of the select committee, because this bill demonstrates again, as I think Mr Woolerton said, that the Primary Production Committee acts in a collegial way. We actually get on with the business. I commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u00220c57225881854c8cb58be862cd835861\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c57225881854c8cb58be862cd835861\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the officials from the Ministry for the Environment. I have certainly appreciated their input and their sincere response to the many questions that we have asked. As may be seen, some of those questions came out of left field, but all arose from genuine concerns. The officials always responded freely, frankly, and with a lot of consideration. We thank them for taking our ideas back to their Ministers and their ministry and thinking them through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI also thank the Ministry of Fisheries officials. The Ministry of Fisheries has had a big year. We know that because the Primary Production Committee, which considered this legislation, has dealt with five significant fisheries matters this year, the Aquaculture Reform Bill being the last. The Ministry of Fisheries officials also went away and thought through some of the ideas of the select committee members, and came back with resolutions. We appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EAnd, of course, I thank the Department of Conservation officials, who probably got the most flak from committee members, because of the concern, obviously, about how much say the Department of Conservation wanted in the whole process. We as a committee were generally very wary about that. But the officials stood up for their points of view, and we appreciate that. So I thank those officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI also thank all the submitters, both those from the commercial-fishing sector and those from the marine-farming sector, who put forward their views to the select committee as we travelled across the country. I acknowledge them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI acknowledge my colleagues on the committee. I would like, of course, to commend those on my own side\u2014the Opposition members\u2014but, on the Government side, I would particularly like to commend Jacket Mackey. I have enjoyed working with her, particularly over the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282d977a27aa84deeac5ba9202f86efbb\u0022\u003EGovernment Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ooh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220823037a11ee482395bf8a934f120ea5\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I will be asking her out to dinner at some later date. I would like to commend her for her very rational and pragmatic approach to the problems that, often, we raised. Although a member of an opposing party, she was willing to hear us out. She did not agree with all our points every time, but she certainly took them into account, understood them, and took them back to her Minister, and we saw changes in many, many cases. I acknowledge her for that, and I thank her for her pragmatic approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe National Party, as a team, drove through significant changes to this legislation, because when it was first introduced\u2014as everyone knows now\u2014it was seriously and fatally flawed. People from the industry who came to us were very concerned that this legislation would affect their businesses, and that they would have to lay off staff and shift overseas. They begged for changes. We acknowledge that the select committee process has seen significant changes in this legislation, and when it is enacted we will be glad that those changes are now part of it. But we still oppose this legislation, because of outstanding issues that, in our view, have not been resolved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe issue of horse-trading with M\u0101ori on the seabed and foreshore legislation is a prime example. The Government is giving aquaculture space for free to iwi to buy their support for the seabed and foreshore legislation. In the future, up to 40 percent of new marine-farming space will be set aside for M\u0101ori, to address what is referred to as the unfinished business of the 1992 fisheries settlement. We called for historical documentary evidence that proves there was such unfinished business, but we still have not received any, despite assurances that such evidence exists. With the reforms in this legislation, marine-farming applications that have been put on hold for 2 years and 9 months\u2014it will be close to 3 years\u2014by the moratorium are to be used by the Crown to settle contemporary M\u0101ori claims. The National Party feels that the fact that an applicant\u2019s space can be reallocated to someone else is unfair, and that a settlement of one grievance should not generate and create another grievance, which is exactly what is happening here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EMost M\u0101ori submitters do not acknowledge this action as a settlement, at all. They do not want to be played off against others in the industry. There was no negotiation, and with this legislation\u2014unlike the 1992 fisheries settlement\u2014there is no deed of settlement to point to. Many M\u0101ori who came to the select committee were dissatisfied. They foresee themselves receiving space they would not have chosen, they see themselves receiving random patches of space of no economic value, and they see themselves being played off against the industry, and in their view it is not over yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ENational sees the treaty settlement approach taken with Ng\u0101i Tahu, Ng\u0101ti Tama, Ng\u0101ti Awa, Ng\u0101ti Ruanui, and Ng\u0101 Rauru K\u012Btahi, which gave preferential tendering rights for aquaculture space, as a satisfactory, full and final way to address aquaculture claims that have merit. We do not see the broad, blanket approach of a 20 percent give-away right across the country as a way to address a genuine claim. Genuine settlements with iwi should be addressed on a case by case basis, should be solely between the Crown and M\u0101ori, and should not involve or interfere with the operations of current or future marine farmers. That is where the National Party sits on this quid pro quo, horse-trading deal with M\u0101ori that the Labour Government is pushing through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe still have some unanswered questions on how aquacultural interests will be balanced with commercial-fishing interests. We support interaction between those two sectors, and we want to give them a timely, fully transparent, and cost-effective process to follow. We do not know how the regional councils will be able to quantify and qualify aquaculture\u2019s effects on fishing, when they look at things such as the effect on spawning and stock development. We believe that problems may arise in the future, and we will be watching that with interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EProbably the biggest win for National Party MPs on the committee was getting the right of first refusal for incumbent marine farmers. We are glad we got that win. We are concerned that there are still a couple of fishhooks in the legislation whereby the incumbents, to gain renewal, have to manage their farms according to what the Government calls industry-good practice\u2014a term that it has not defined, that is vague and subjective, and that will change as technology changes. We are also concerned that the Government has a fishhook whereby regional councils may re-tender occupied space out from underneath an incumbent marine farmer, if they deem it \u201Cnecessary\u201D. We are not sure what \u201Cnecessary\u201D means there, but we do know that it is subject to Government policy changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ENational supports this industry. We wish that aquaculture would grow. It is good for New Zealand, and there is no doubt about that. We do not want New Zealand marine farmers shifting overseas and taking their business elsewhere. We want them in this country. We wish them well. We will be watching the way that these reforms affect their industry into the future, and when we are in Government after the election next year we will be more than prepared to make changes to this legislation, if we see aquaculture continuing to struggle under this new legislative environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c12b710dc06747b8b730c71dc7557545\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c12b710dc06747b8b730c71dc7557545\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I commend the bills\u2019 third readings to the House, and in so doing I will make three or four quick observations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe first is that, once again, we have legislation that is a litmus test in terms of the difference between this Government and the Opposition. We have provided once again all the deliverables, and once again we are unleashing the latent economic potential and prowess of Kiwis\u2014regardless of community, regardless of colour, and regardless of stakeholdership\u2014and I commend the bills to the House accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe second point I want to make is that a couple of members opposite continue to get up and bang on about race. The Hon Nick Smith will always talk about race because he understands colour bars, but he does not understand rights. The reality is that this is rights-based legislation. It is bonded right into the heartland of the constitution of this country, and it should be adhered to and accepted accordingly. If Dr Smith wants to bang on about race\u2014as usual\u2014and to play divide and rule, I say to him that it is a very, very dangerous game to be playing. This Government is the only Government that can bring this country together, because it actually represents the face of this country. It actually understands, tolerates, and respects everyone in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe reason why the M\u0101ori Party is voting against this legislation, I alert members, is that 20 percent is not good enough. That party says it has got to be 100 percent, and it should have been done yesterday! We should have put Phil Heatley on the endangered species list, as well. But Tariana Turia was not able to move those amendments. A vote for the M\u0101ori Party, as a consequence, is a vote for a great past; a vote for the M\u0101ori members of the Labour Party is a vote for a great future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00223b4d48691e1440f6bfe55eae7faebb65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b4d48691e1440f6bfe55eae7faebb65\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E This an awful bill that represents all that is bad about the treaty gravy train that this Government is determined to continue. It is nothing more than a crude attempt to buy back M\u0101ori support after the fiasco of the foreshore and seabed issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI represent a constituency of which aquaculture is one of the most important industries. It has one of the greatest amounts of opportunity for future wealth creation, not just for Nelson but also for New Zealand. I ask members opposite why the 1 percent of the Nelson population\u2014numbering 916 people at the last census\u2014who happen to affiliate to local iwi should get a preferential right, and why they should get 20 percent of any future aquaculture space in the Nelson region. I ask members opposite how they can pretend that we have a single standard of citizenship, when 1 percent of the people in my region will get 20 percent of the economic opportunities from aquaculture. That is wrong, and that is why this Labour Government will be turfed out next year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe story of the aquaculture industry is one of lost opportunity under this Government. In the 1990s there was huge and exciting growth within that sector. That industry grew from just $20 million in 1990 to over $300 million, but over the last 5 years the industry has been quite static. There has been no growth, because of the moratorium that has been imposed by this Government. The reason for that moratorium is, quite simply, that this Government has not been able to get its act together and have a clear set of rules for the industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI must also reinforce the very intelligent contribution that has been made by National\u2019s fisheries spokesperson, Phil Heatley. The point he has made has not been responded to by any Labour member, and I would also challenge New Zealand First, which is supporting this legislation, in that regard. If we are to have full and final settlements, they must be just that. In 1992 the Sealord\u2019s deal was full and final settlement for all fisheries claims. If we look through the Hansard and through all the paper record, nowhere\u2014anywhere\u2014did anybody say that the settlement did not include aquaculture. If we look at the legal provisions of that settlement Act, it defined commercial fisheries as those activities that would require a fishing permit. Government members know that aquaculture does require a fisheries permit and that it was included in that settlement. In 1992 the taxpayer forked out $160 million for full and final settlement of that claim, but now the Labour Government is backtracking on that and writing out another huge cheque. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe do not know the value of the aquaculture space that Labour is giving in this bill preferentially to M\u0101ori only. I would estimate, though, that it is worth over $200 million, at least. Let us be quite clear. What this bill is doing is transferring $200 million of preferential opportunity for M\u0101ori, and I simply ask why. We all know that the crude political reason is that Labour is terrified it will lose its grip on those M\u0101ori seats to Tariana Turia and the M\u0101ori Party, so it is prepared to throw away all principle and all good government in a simple, crude attempt to buy back M\u0101ori votes. Members on this side of the Chamber say that is wrong. We say that if the treaty settlement process is to successfully see New Zealand through to fruition, then full and final settlement must mean just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I wish to comment on is the changes that were made to this bill by the Primary Production Committee. I compliment David Carter and Phil Heatley on the good work they have done for the Kiwi battlers who make up the aquaculture industry. They are pioneers. Those people went out and created a new industry for this country. They created an industry that is a world leader, but this Government was prepared to undermine their rights by not allowing them to have security of tenure in terms of the future. I say to David Carter and to all members of the select committee that at least they understand and rolled the Minister on that point, because if they had not, then the industry\u2019s future would have been seriously at risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that differentiates Labour from National. Labour is a party that is prepared to sell out its principles, to not seek full and final settlement, and to get out the chequebook of preferential rights for M\u0101ori. Those of us from National and ACT would rather say that all New Zealanders need to be treated equally with regard to an important industry like fishing. We oppose this bill. It demonstrates every reason why there needs to be a change of Government in New Zealand next year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022321adac2ef2f4c91a9e36c76e81c0033\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022321adac2ef2f4c91a9e36c76e81c0033\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table a document that I referred to. It is the Gardiner and Parata report dated 20 May 2002.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022908e24776d93456b914a872c57743b9e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223fd89f2a89e34320b6c5763bfdbd5e1d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022845cd027b84245239d6b8159b17feb87\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b385786464ae4212923ef28a9a04d8a4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221adc038ae6d34a63bc901a77083f5446\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002216f399498f97482ba76b7c6142673230\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e75670afab804cdda1bb1fed38e56325\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022588c2ad5cf944433bc7a51fd62e4e7cc\u0022\u003ESubordinate Legislation (Confirmationand Validation) Bill (No 3)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220f4a150bbb1b4affbb423900e5599f4c\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022155b0639631843a7b529287796a5a435\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022155b0639631843a7b529287796a5a435\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. The bill was referred by the House to the Regulations Review Committee on 7 October. The select committee presented its report on 3 December, recommending that the bill be passed with amendments supported unanimously by its members. The committee called for explanations from the six departments administering the 14 orders to be confirmed, or to be confirmed and validated, by the bill as introduced. The committee was satisfied with the responses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EAt the Government\u2019s request the Regulations Review Committee considered two matters not addressed in the bill as introduced. The first of these was confirmation of the Deer Industry New Zealand Regulations 2004. These regulations were being made just as the bill was introduced, so necessarily missed inclusion. They replace the venerable Game Industry Board Regulations 1985, reflecting the reform of the industry in more recent years. They lapse unless confirmed by the end of the Parliament, and this, of course, is the last scheduled confirmation and validation bill in the meantime, as an election must be held by the end of September. The select committee was satisfied that the regulations should be confirmed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe second matter concerns amendments that would validate payments made under levy notices issued under the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The payments were made under notices issued between 1983 and 2004, so it can be said that National started it, Labour continued it, National continued it, National - New Zealand First continued it further, National and various odds and sods continued it further still, and the Labour-led Government has continued it still, down to 2004. So the guilt is reasonably evenly spread around the Chamber, and, indeed, into the heavens above, I think one can say at this point. The select committee\u2019s commentary summarises, on page 2, the types of deficiencies in the notices. The select committee sought comments on the proposed amendments from key industry groups, and established that there was no opposition to them, so the committee accepted unanimously that it is appropriate to validate the payments made under the effective notices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe commentary notes that two submitters called for changes to the actual principal Act, the Alcohol Advisory Council Act, but that, of course, is outside the scope of this particular bill. The select committee invited the Minister of Health at an appropriate time to consider the matters nominated by the Distilled Spirits Association.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI am grateful to Dr Richard Worth, as chair of the Regulations Review Committee, and to the members of the committee for their work on the bill. In particular I am pleased that the committee has supported the amendments dealing with the deer industry and Alcohol Advisory Council matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff16f92863424be093ec015c1ad0f4c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff16f92863424be093ec015c1ad0f4c5\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E For some, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) might not be a bowel-gripping topic, but for others, Dr Cullen included, it provides, I guess, a heady topic of infinite fascination. I am certainly looking forward to taking multiple calls in the context of the Committee stage of the bill, when there will be an opportunity to tease out some of the more challenging issues that arise in connection with this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EOf course, it has been reported from the Regulations Review Committee that the structure of the legislation is simple\u2014simple, I would say, in every respect. Apart from the title and commencement provisions, there are only two parts: Part 1, dealing with general and technical provisions; and Part 2, in two subparts, the first dealing with confirmation and validation, and the second dealing with a more particular form of validation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003ESo it is that we are looking at confirmation of instruments made in accordance with the Animal Products Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the Biosecurity Act, the Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the Gambling Act, the New Zealand Superannuation Act, the Social Security Act, the Primary Products Marketing Act, the War Pensions Act, and the Alcohol Advisory Council Act\u2014all, of course, heady provisions in daily use by significant members of the commercial community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EAn interesting question to ask would be why we have legislation of this particular quality. Would it not be better to have sunset provisions in legislation of this type, rather than to have the process that the Regulations Review Committee determinedly embarks upon each year to make studied judgments on whether particular pieces of legislation should be confirmed and/or validated? In this particular case, after an exhausting and harrowing process, the Regulations Review Committee determined that it was appropriate for this bill to be passed, albeit with a number of amendments. So it is that the purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate subordinate legislation made under various Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThis is not one of those cases where whether what we are talking about are regulations in the strict sense of that term is a matter that arises for detailed consideration. Dr Cullen will be aware, certainly from his reading, that there are issues that are both intensely academic but also very practical as to how regulations within the purview of the Regulations Review Committee\u2019s jurisdiction should be properly looked at. So we see here, in effect, not regulations\u2014or not so limited, certainly, in that way\u2014but a series of orders. I need refer only to the Biosecurity (American Foulbrood - Apiary and Beekeeper Levy Order) 2003\u2014usefully reprinted in statutory regulation 2003/283\u2014to make that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWe asked the Government departments responsible for administering the subordinate legislation their views on these particular pieces of delegated legislation. We asked the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Social Development, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and the New Zealand Customs Service, and our final port of call was Veterans Affairs New Zealand, whether, as departments responsible for administering the legislation, they considered that there should be the appropriate confirmation and validation orders. Surprise, surprise, they gave proper explanations and indicated their view that confirmation or validation was appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EDr Cullen has referred to the fact that the bill includes\u2014properly\u2014a request from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in connection with amendments that would confirm the Deer Industry New Zealand Regulations. The reason for that request was simply that the regulations were not included in the bill as they were made only 2 days before the bill\u2019s introduction. So there was an explanation from the ministry as to why that had occurred, which the committee found acceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI shall not take up the time of the House at this stage to talk about issues that arose in the context of the submission made by the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand. But there are significant issues of substance there, and it would be a good outcome if in the Committee stage the Minister indicated what his position was in respect of those questions of anomaly, and I do not put it higher than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EDr Cullen\u2019s opening comments in this second reading referred to amendments to validate the Alcohol Advisory Council levies, and so he should properly do so. There has been a history of error-ridden lawmaking relating to those notices. The story really starts with the notices issued in the years 1983 to 1987, and, again, of course, in 1989, with the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol. [Interruption] Mr Power reminds me that he was still at school at that time, and I certainly remember him as a very promising schoolboy in a high-profile school. He has gone on from there to prove himself in this Parliament as a person certainly worthy of recognition and advancement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022379f2ddfc835487ca480e23627d89cea\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Could the member come back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6f2e1fff66b42b1bc2d7048572fe315\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to come back to the notices if I might, because they were issued, as I said, in the years 1983 to 1987, then again in 1989. We are talking about the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol, rather than by what is called in the trade proof litre, which was the correct unit at that time. That was the first problem. The second was perhaps more serious, and it related to the unauthorised setting of differential rates for spirits depending on their alcohol content, with a further unauthorised rating on the basis of litre of beverage, instead of litre of alcohol, in the case of spirits with a lower alcoholic content. The third error related to notices issued in the years 1989 to 2004, where there was a questionable indication of goods and services tax payable on the levies. The final problem, with the notices issued in 2003 and 2004, was a failure to follow the statutory formula for calculating the levies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EDr Cullen, in his comments, indicated that he thought the blame might reasonably be spread between the former National Government and the present Labour Government, but I trust that that recitation is sufficient to show that the errors have been substantially of this Government\u2019s making and of its advisers. Certainly, that is what my catalogue of events indicates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003ESo what has happened is that this bill has a new subpart 2 of Part 2. That includes clause 15, \u201CPayments made in accordance with levy notices to be taken to comply with relevant enactments\u201D. For those members of the House and, I guess, members of the public who have access to this material, I tell them that listed in clause 17 are those levy notices, lettered respectively from (a) to (u), that are the subject of remedial work in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00227356d92983034f21b4bbf5100eb33f5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227356d92983034f21b4bbf5100eb33f5f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E It is a great pleasure to take a very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). A bill sufficient to overshadow the Budget? A bill sufficient to wake up Ron Mark? This bill is none of those things. However, the public can sleep easier in their beds knowing that Richard Worth is alive, well, and leading the Regulations Review Committee through its intrepid journey to ensure that none of those amendments or regulations are outside the Standing Orders. This is a process that we go through every year where we do not delay from doing the little tinkering and fixing jobs that occasionally the law requires. On that basis, I am happy to support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00227bc9773d452d4cf682cb34e61b01c90e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bc9773d452d4cf682cb34e61b01c90e\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill, reminding me, once again, that even the sins of 1983 and 1984 have come back to haunt me. That is when these errors commenced, when I was a member of Parliament in 1983 and 1984. It is totally unfair to blame anyone, including myself, of course, for those defaults. The member at the time, the former Speaker Sir Richard Harrison, was a staunch supporter of the then Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council from day one, and after the royal commission from 1976 onwards, and he would find a great deal of amusement in knowing that this problem had occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs I understand it, in the discussions I have had, the problem arose, because the officials asked parliamentary counsel to draft an amendment to the procedure. Parliamentary counsel said: \u201CHang on a minute. The procedure you want us to amend hasn\u2019t yet been approved by Parliament.\u201D, and someone discovered they had been unwittingly using that procedure since about 1983. So things finally do get caught up with in this place, even if it does take about 21 years to work it all out. But this is New Zealand. New Zealand First is not going to make a song and dance of this issue. It is unfortunate, and that is what this bill is all about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EMay I say that I was delighted to speak with the Distilled Spirits Association representative, who makes calls on us regularly and keeps us up to date with the industry, and makes sure that members of Parliament know what is going on. The question raised by the Alcohol Advisory Council is of great concern, and I do hope the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of this bill, will do something to remedy the problem raised. He gives me a nod, and perhaps in due course that will be remedied, as well. New Zealand First supports this bill. It does not intend to filibuster. It is a simple bill, which should go through promptly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022 data-id=\u00223c0b1cf3ea9b41fd94bcfee58012fc95\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c0b1cf3ea9b41fd94bcfee58012fc95\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It was interesting to hear Mr Cunliffe say that every year the Government does a little tinkering and fixing of legislation in which drafting mistakes have been made. I think that should be a bit of a lesson to us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255d90f5bff304bbe9366aa8ef8ebd372\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022275a9598a86544828f7aea2b9dd9f000\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Cullen does not agree, but Mr Cunliffe is worried about the tinkering and fixing, so that is important. We should think very carefully about the legislation that we push through the House, particularly under urgency. If we did we might not have to look at it again, or do as much tinkering and fixing as we are doing under this period of urgency. Of course, there is always subordinate legislation that quite rightly fixes mistakes in legislation but I note that further down the Order Paper we have the Gambling Amendment Bill, to amend legislation that was passed only last year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EIn terms of subordinate legislation, I am particularly interested in the validation of the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levies. The National Party member gave us a very thorough look at the problems that have existed. Of course, Dr Cullen quite magnanimously admitted the cross-party fault that has existed with the levy notices that were issued in 1983 through to 1987, and again in 1989. They do quite rightly require fixing. The industry could quite rightly have sought some form of compensation for levies that have been paid but perhaps were not actually necessary. The industry itself, although it is keen to see these problems rectified, was well aware of the authority that it could have exercised in dealing with these in quite a different way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EI notice in the commentary on the bill that the Distilled Spirits Association when it gave its submission to the Regulations Review Committee put forward some proposals that have been ruled out as being outside the scope of this bill, but I agree with the member when he says the proposals put forward by the association do need a good deal of consideration. I too hope these will be discussed during the Committee stage. In brief, the association proposes a new model of product classification, in bands based on alcohol content, and suggests a requirement that information\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297d75dd9c4714c7badec8a2c34eb4325\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not part of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a399e0fac0c2459f9804116711ce3e6e\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I do hope these will be discussed because they are very important points, which were raised when the Distilled Spirits Association was asked for comment on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b958452c4334b49848981a8c51e927b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That does not make them in order now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8f86f3f3ccb4ccfa893cd2eecf74375\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: The bill addresses two matters with regard to the validation of Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levies: firstly, the unauthorised setting of levies in the notices issued from 1983 to 1987, and again in 1989; secondly, the unauthorised setting of differential rates according to alcohol content. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EThis speech will be very brief, because ACT New Zealand is supporting the bill, but I want to sound a warning that it is very important that we look carefully at legislation when it is first introduced to the House, not when we have to tinker and fix things, as Mr Cunliffe has pointed out, further down the track. It is very important that the select committee process is respected and that people are able to make submissions at the correct times, and they are listened to very carefully when people have very valid concerns about the legislation that is being put forward. ACT New Zealand will support this legislation but we would like to sound this cautionary warning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c23e672c89a2462cacbb3e52011bc2f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c23e672c89a2462cacbb3e52011bc2f0\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E United Future did not have a member on the Regulations Review Committee, which considered the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), but I have great confidence in the people who were on the committee, which was chaired, I am sure very well, by Richard Worth of National, and comprised members from the Labour Party, the ACT party, and the New Zealand First Party. I have read the committee\u2019s report. I note it expresses itself to be very satisfied indeed that the bill is taking the appropriate action in terms of confirmation and validation, and therefore I am happy to signal United Future\u2019s support for this reading of the bill and all its remaining stages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b16b313de660447182f91644d404337f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b16b313de660447182f91644d404337f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of National to support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), but just before we rush this bill through its second reading and remaining stages the House should take a moment to reflect\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f15051c31a0c4f8a924edb3cb78484e7\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Before National changes its mind on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022436b5d95cbb34d15b9ba228a69cc6418\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Hughes that there are a whole number of things we would love to discuss, but I will try to keep my comments to the subordinate legislation. I want to make a comment about the validation of the Alcohol Advisory Council levies, which go back to 1983. I make the point that in reading the commentary on the bill\u2014and I was not a member of the Regulations Review Committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022042f16b8a6b640a0b19b72308543a260\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: You can\u2019t get everything right!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a53b2b9bc4824361bc108b24c7d70531\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Lucky I was not. In reading the commentary it seems that it could be debatable whether the levies issued during that period were legal. The errors include, for instance, \u201Cfor the notices issued in the years from 1983 to 1987 and 1989, the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol, rather than by \u2018proof litre\u2019,\u201D and \u201Cthe unauthorised setting of differential rates for spirits depending on their alcoholic content\u201D, and so on. That raises the quite interesting issue whereby people who paid that levy may now feel they were not legally required to do so. Here we are, under urgency, in the dead of the afternoon, and with the Government rushing through a work programme that is sketchy at the best of times, having to validate some levies that are, at best, debatable. I think the House should reflect on that, and when we get to the Committee stage National members will be taking the opportunity to have a very good look at those levies just to make sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI do not want to dwell too much on the errors of Parliament back then. I want to address another part of the subordinate legislation before us. I turn to clause 12, which validates the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order. As Parliament will know, those rates are annually confirmed through Order in Council, and if, through this subordinate legislation, Parliament was not to reconfirm them, they would lapse. Today we are putting those through, and that is the reason, in part, that National is supporting this legislation. But I want to draw to the House\u2019s attention the likely changes that will take place to some of those social security benefits, and, in particular, to give some idea of what the situation looks like for those New Zealanders who currently have a war pension payable under the War Pension Act of 1954.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EAlthough it is difficult, from the legislation, to see exactly which particular people we are talking about, I want to give the House some idea. Their current allowance is $159.76, and that will rise to $162.24. I think it is quite interesting that here we are, in this Chamber\u2014a war memorial itself\u2014recognising this issue, but I want to make the point that that is roughly a $3 increase for those in receipt of war pensions under the Act of 1954. National supports that, in the sense that at least those people are getting something, but I see the Minister of Finance scrunching up his face, and well he might. Those New Zealanders receiving that pension have, over the last 5 or 6 years, had to go through significant cost increases passed on by a Government that does not care about New Zealanders on fixed incomes. New Zealanders who pay rates bills have found that they have gone up by about 10.2 percent per year, because this Government passed the Local Government Act, which allows local government bodies to carry out any crazy idea that comes into their head. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI was delighted, if I may say so, that the Minister of Finance, who also chairs the infrastructure committee, chose not to proceed with the Whenuapai commercial airport, because that would have dumped a whole lot of costs on the ratepayers of Waitakere. That was a very wise decision, if I may say so. My point is that the costs were the costs\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0a1028fb2b34439af4a102f9bd1ce64\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: You shouldn\u2019t say so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cec8275ce7b47fd9b219053a243fe92\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I should not say so; OK, I will say so in the papers. But the point is that the Government is quite happy to say to the pensioners of New Zealand that here are some additional costs\u2014that here is a 10.2 percent increase in their rates bills. Similarly, early on in the year the Government passed the indexation of petrol. Many fixed-income New Zealanders will have noticed, when they go to fill up their cars, that the price of petrol has gone up. It will go up every year because the Government has passed enabling legislation to allow petrol to be indexed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe also saw the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton introduce a bill to provide a sherry tax\u2014a bill that was passed under urgency, I might add. Many of us remember that the Minister came to the Chamber and told the people of New Zealand that he was doing that to stop young New Zealanders from drinking. But not too many young New Zealanders drink sherry. It is not too cool to turn up on Saturday night with a flagon of sherry tucked under one\u2019s arm. So what he did was rob dollars and cents from the pension books of New Zealand. Pensioners sitting at home are unable to afford their sherry. That is why, in my electorate, two major sherry producers are now having financial difficulties. They cannot sell it. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI say to Mr Hughes that he is a young man, and he does not go out on Saturday night with a flagon of sherry tucked under his arm. I am slightly older than he is, and I do not drink sherry, either, but I will tell him that the cost has gone up by about $14.50 because of that tax increase. That is the additional cost. Many older New Zealanders who like a sherry on a Friday or Saturday night cannot afford it because Jim Anderton decided he did not want 16-year-olds to drink it. He has robbed them of their sherry on a Saturday night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EMy point is that we are here, in the dead of the afternoon, forcing through a subordinate legislation bill. Why are we doing that? Because without it New Zealanders getting a war pension will not get an extra $3. At the same time, we have a Government that is very happy to have rates go up by 10.2 percent, very happy to have petrol indexed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f01fe97402c1444d9e9cb41c5c09ece9\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: How will National stop that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6bb970bacf949be802be5b827b25a44\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: If you want a discussion on how National would fix things, I am very happy to have it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f0625d884c4478492e01626f7951fe3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205aa5974ca3a47aea1a77c5334c4b510\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I was referring to the junior Labour whip, who was encouraging me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258cc873dd921457a9955ed8a4b0f7a6d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. The junior whip will keep quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bd081cc28c84b09a88f6a4444a3ce1a\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I think so. The junior whip was getting excited. He wanted me to give the National Party manifesto. I would have been more than happy to take a 20-minute speech on that, because New Zealanders want to hear that sort of information. They do not want to hear the drivel of the member for Otaki.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI go back to my point about the bill, which is that we have a Government that is happy to pass on costs to fixed-income New Zealanders across a range of activities, whether it is rates, petrol, sherry\u2014you name it, the Government taxes it\u2014as the Government has done 30 times this year. I note that the Minister of Finance had no answer to that on Morning Report this morning. He has raised levies and taxes 30 times this year, and under this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the poor old war pensioners get three bucks\u2014a $3 increase. We look forward to engaging with the Government on this matter in the Committee stage, because we think fixed-income New Zealanders deserve more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00220f04f78227b34130b7397821b460e0f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f04f78227b34130b7397821b460e0f2\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (National\u2014Piako):\u003C/span\u003E I want to draw attention to Part 2. Rather than talking about it during the Committee stage, I want to speak about it now. Clause 11 relates to the Gambling Act. There are two parts in that Act that I want to draw the House\u2019s attention to. National will certainly support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), but I want to look at the Gambling Act and the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations, and the value of the weightings given to W1 and W2 in the levy formula.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe recommendations to Cabinet a couple of years ago suggested that the weighting should be 0.8, based on presentations, and 0.2, based on player expenditure. There is not any substantive information around in terms of presentations; many figures are pulled out of the air to justify the weightings based on people who are fronting up for problem-gambling assistance. That is why the Cabinet policy committee, back in 2001, suggested those figures. But the regulations state that 0.9, or 90 percent, of the levy will be based on presentations, and 0.1, or 10 percent, on expenditure. It is certainly National\u2019s view that those figures are unrealistic. They cannot be substantiated in any way. Probably a more realistic figure would be 0.7, or 70 percent, for presentations and 0.3, or 30 percent, based on expenditure or turnover. Those would be fairly conservative estimates but, certainly, more realistic than what we see in the regulations now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe second point I draw the House\u2019s attention to is the levy that has been set. It has been interesting to note that, according to the answers to a number of parliamentary questions I have asked, the levies have gone up substantially over the last few years. In the 2002-03 year, the sum was $9.8 million; in 2003-04, it was $12 million; and in a Department of Internal Affairs document the figure for the 2004-07 period comes out at about $54.5 million. That is a substantial increase in the gambling levy on gaming operators, given that they are also required to have harm minimisation programmes, and given the increased compliance costs like electronic monitoring, and the reduced site rentals. When we look at the combination of all the increased compliance costs and the lack of money going back into the industry, we see that the people who lose out are the charities that are dependent on these funds to fund their operations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EWhile National accepts that there needs to be a problem gambling levy, we submit that the levy is not based on factual material. The Ministry of Health, which will take over the handling of the problem gambling levy, has not been able to supply me with substantive information on what the figure of $54.5 million over the next 3 years has been based on. Just as with the harm minimisation programmes, a programme that is currently available in Australia and that could be used extensively in New Zealand has been overlooked, and we are finding that exorbitant consultancy are fees being charged. In fact, I am told that the charitable clubs in New Zealand will probably spend about $1 million on their harm minimisation programmes, whereas programmes can be bought off the shelf in Australia for less than $10,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe point I am making is that there are huge costs that gaming operators are having to contend with. At the end of the day, the losers are those organisations out in the community that are dependent on charitable funding to run their operations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002271cca1b3e58c4d058c55c740d354ba9f\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00221dc7d946381a436bb3caac87411882b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221dc7d946381a436bb3caac87411882b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022905bac6dc48c4947a646d8acaac14fea\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226b19f42fa76d4eb8b0cde5214e11c35e\u0022\u003EPart 1  General and technical provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u00223fd1b1fa0a184d4397ae2114e792103a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fd1b1fa0a184d4397ae2114e792103a\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koutou to members and Mr Chairperson as we gather for the important Committee stage of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). I hope the opportunity will exist to take multiple calls, not only on this part but also on Part 2, which is very important. Part 1 is primarily concerned with general and technical provisions. It raises a number of questions that I would like to put to the Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, that do not seem to be sufficiently answered by reference to the predecessor legislation. I refer to the provision contained in clause 5 that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act of 2003 is to be repealed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe starting point for these issues is really clause 3, which seems superficially to be straightforward. It sets out the purpose of the respective parts of the legislation. It deals firstly with Subpart 1 of Part 2 and simply notes, as it properly should, that the purpose of the part is to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation made under certain statutes that would otherwise lapse unless confirmed or validated. Clause 3(2) then deals with validations affected by two provisions: the provision in clause 12 relating to the New Zealand Superannuation Act and the Social Security Act, and the provision in clause 13 relating to the War Pensions Act. It is not completely clear whether that validation would also be relevant to new clause 12A, inserted by the Regulations Review Committee. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it may very well be intended that clause 12A is to be subsumed into clause 12. If that is the case, I can see that some complicating problems may well arise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe real point in connection with clause 3(2) is expressed in the paragraphs of that clause. The validations do not do these things: \u201C(a) express an intention to give legislative force to the provisions of those enactments; or (b) apply to any reason for invalidating any of those enactments; or (c) override any presumption that would otherwise apply to any of those enactments.\u201D The paragraphs that I have read out are a replication of what is in the Act that is now proposed to be repealed. But their exact scope was not clear to the Regulations Review Committee\u2014although, in the result, we took no real account of that. I ask the Minister why those provisions have been carried forward and what the legislative purpose is of having those provisions. It seems to me that they have been carried forward simply as a matter of routine, as the predecessor legislation has been enacted year by year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWhat is contemplated, for example, by a validation not expressing an intention to give legislative force to the provision of the enactment? There is no doubt that those validations have a legislative quality. It may be a legislative quality that is more associated with delegated legislation than with legislation that has a primary purpose, but the bill does not state that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259d0a66aed1f47c2b39b58ac9e41935d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It is in there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e022bb1a7ab84e279b5ec9e11c6ef9e2\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister is saying that the primary legislation has those matters in it. That is not the point, though. I am asking what is intended by the scope of that paragraph. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThen there is the second saving, which is concerned with the application of reasons for invalidating those enactments. Will that preserve intact the possibility that despite the confirmation and validation procedure that we are being asked to undertake, there is nevertheless the prospect of the invalidation of those regulations? If it does, we are faced with the situation whereby it may be that some of those pieces of subordinate legislation are not regulations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002289f98ab1aa494c0fa7fbb028aa23c448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289f98ab1aa494c0fa7fbb028aa23c448\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E To give an answer, the matter is quite complex. I understand that there was a court decision some years ago that confirmation by bill could rule out any other form of challenge. In this case, this legislation is intended to make sure that it does not extend as far as that. It is purely and narrowly confined to the confirmation of the actual orders to lift the rates of New Zealand superannuation and benefits, etc. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022356e7f80053246e0aadc171630aa3f03\u0022\u003EPart 2  Confirmations and validations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce76997c7ee4491892c38872c28280f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce76997c7ee4491892c38872c28280f5\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E I hope that other members of the Committee, like Mr Copeland and perhaps Dail Jones, will feel constrained to make some comment on the very important Part 2. I will deal with one aspect, which touches clause 9. That clause refers to the Commodity Levies Act, in which, curiously perhaps, \u201Ccommodity\u201D is defined as meaning \u201Cany agricultural, farmed, forestry, horticultural, mineral, or wild product:\u201D. That legislation provides the basis for those levies to be imposed annually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EOnly four levies have been picked out here: the Commodity Levies (Tamarillos) Order, the Commodity Levies (Meat) Order, the Commodity Levies (Wool) Order, and the Commodity Levies (Winegrapes) Order. All those orders, except for the first, are from 2004. Of course, there are a host of commodity levies that go back to the period generally commencing from 2000. I ask the Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, what has happened to the Commodity Levies (Arable Crops) Order, the Commodity Levies (Asparagus) Order, the Commodity Levies (Avocados) Order, and the Commodity Levies (Bee Products) Order. Only three orders are directly picked up, as I said. The Commodity Levies (Winegrapes) Order of 2004 does not appear in the predecessor orders, except under a different name: the Commodity Levies (Winemaking Grapes) Order, the statutory reference of which is 1998/349. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWhat we see in the structure of the Commodity Levies Act, as it is reflected in Part 2 of this bill and in the orders made in terms of clause 9, is the confirmation of orders, following a statutory process. That statutory process is in many respects quite unusual. I just flag, for example, section 8 of that Act, which deals with the issue of conscientious objection. It is very refreshing to see that there may be an ability to refuse to pay a levy for a reason relating to conscientious or religious grounds. That is what section 8 of that Act provides. It states: \u201CEvery levy order shall make special provision for the payment of amounts of levy by persons who object on conscientious or religious grounds to paying it in the manner otherwise provided for in the order.\u201D We do not know yet whether challenges will be made to this legislation by people who, for conscientious or religious grounds, do not want to pay levies in respect of tamarillos, meat, wool, or wine grapes. But that possibility cannot be ruled out. Certainly, National is interested to know how the Government would approach a conscientious objector\u2019s claim. Either the levy would be paid or it would not. How is it intended that there would be an adjustment that would reflect in a conscientious way the very purposive provisions of section 8 of the Act? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EOf course, Subpart 1 of Part 2 of the bill is much wider than simply a reference to the Commodity Levies Act, because it deals with legislation such as the Animal Products Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the Biosecurity Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the Gambling Act\u2014which my friend Mr Tisch has spoken on\u2014the New Zealand Superannuation Act, the Primary Products Marketing Act, and the War Pensions Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIt is also in Subpart 2 that the issue of \u201CValidation of payments under levy notices under Alcohol Advisory Council Act\u201D arises. I briefly referred to what seems to be an area that requires clear, remedial, legislative intervention. The Distilled Spirits Association made it very clear to us that it was not opposed to the supplementary audit of this bill that inserted Subpart 2. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00222fd16d5246be422ea9e199282bbdbdde\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fd16d5246be422ea9e199282bbdbdde\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I say, just briefly, that in terms of clause 9, levies have to be confirmed within that Parliament or they lapse. Once confirmed, they do not need to be reconfirmed later. In terms of the other matter, I refer the member to clause 15(2), which validates the fact that in effect the levies have been properly collected and therefore are due. Of course, if this bill were not passed, then the member would be quite correct to raise the issue. There would then be a case to argue that the levies were invalid and therefore should be refunded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff6849d043954ac191d6a5d0eab90fea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff6849d043954ac191d6a5d0eab90fea\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (National\u2014Piako):\u003C/span\u003E I would like the Minister to explain the weightings in the levy formula, if he can. I know that it is a technical matter, but I did mention it in the second reading debate. When recommendations were first made\u2014and I have the figures from a Cabinet policy paper\u2014the presentation figures were 0.8 or 80 percent, and the expenditure items were 20 percent, based on turnover. In the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations of 2004, why do we find that the presentation figures are at 0.9 or 90 percent, and the expenditure or turnover figures are at 0.1 or 10 percent? The point I am making is that there is no substantive information, in changing the recommendation that was made some time ago, to justify why the weightings between W1 and W2 were changed in the problem gambling levy formula. I think that is significant, because when we remember that these levies have been set now for 3 years, we know there will be a distortion within the industry as to what those weightings will mean in 3 years\u2019 time. I am thinking 3 years ahead to 2007, when we will see major distortions, in my view, as to what the weightings actually mean. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EAll the research that has been done, and certainly that I have had access to, would indicate a weighting even lower than the Cabinet paper states\u2014even as low as 70 percent\u2014for presentation. I will explain what presentation means. It is the incidence of someone coming along and saying that he or she has a problem. That is what that 0.9 figure has been based on, not on whether the person has been assessed as having a problem. It is just a matter of someone coming along and saying he or she has a gambling problem; that is where the presentation and the 0.9 figure comes from. There is no clinical analysis, and no one sits down and analyses whether the person does actually have a problem and what sort of help may be needed. If we take that into account, then the figure here in this bill of 0.9 or 90 percent is far too high. It cannot be justified by the Ministry of Health, and it cannot be justified by the treatment providers whose job it is to be at the forefront of trying to work this problem through. So I question the Minister about that figure. I see him throw his hands up in horror, but he should be aware that we are supporting this bill. I just want to be given some clarification of that figure. Maybe the advisers could come back to me at a later time, because I know the Minister will discuss the issue with them. I think that when statistics have been used and figures have been taken out of national statistics, then there certainly can be some room for error. That is the first point, and I am happy if I can have an answer on that at a later date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe second point I want to raise concerns the actual percentage of the problem gambling levy. When we look at what the levy states, which is in the schedule under problem gambling levy rates, we see that the casino operator will pay 0.51 percent, the gaming machine operator 1.11 percent, the Lotteries Commission 0.14 percent, and the New Zealand Racing Board 0.57 percent. That is fine; I have no difficulty with that, at all. But I also ask the same question of the Minister about another memo that has different figures for the 3-year period. The figures in the bill are actually lower than those, so that is fine\u2014I am happy with that. But I want to know why the figures are lower now than those in the earlier recommendations when the levy calculations were being worked out for the proposed problem gambling levy. We agree that they should be lower, for some of the reasons that I mentioned before, but once again there has been no justification given in replies to questions I have asked as to how those figures have been worked through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EWhen the proposed problem gambling levy was mooted, the requirement was for a sum of up to about $56 million over a 3-year period, and that figure has come back to $54.5 million. We are comfortable with that. Although, as I said earlier, there is no justification for the huge increases, at least the percentage has come down. In terms of gaming operators, whether they be the Lotteries Commission, the Lottery Grants Board, of which I am a member, the Racing Board, casinos, or non-casino operators, huge compliance costs have been put on them. The figures have not been justified; they have been just plucked out of the air. No doubt members are being inundated at the moment by groups, especially those in the charitable, cultural, and sporting areas, that are being told by the major gaming operators that less funding will be available to them for their purposes, and that they will have to budget accordingly. When we look at where the proceeds of the levy go in terms of funding for organisations, we see that it is just another huge compliance cost that adds to the burdens and woes of those groups. The organisations that need to be helped in the community will be the losers from that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022 data-id=\u0022058c76a8f56541caaeaa9efc6771a116\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022058c76a8f56541caaeaa9efc6771a116\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to Part 2, and in particular I wish to refer to subpart 2, \u201CValidation of payments under levy notices under Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976\u201D. I would like to go back to the beginning of the process when the Minister of Health wrote a letter to each of the parties, asking for their support for this part. She said: \u201CIt has recently become apparent that even though the aggregate Alcohol Advisory Council levy has been assessed in accordance with the Act, the levy is not, and in fact is unable to be, apportioned to the classes of liquor in accordance with the Act. As a result, the annual levy notices that fix the levy rates for each class of liquor, including the present 2004-05 notice, have not set the levy rates in accordance with the Act.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that we have got to this point 21 years down the track, that we have had those notices in place for all that time, and that in fact the levies have not been applied appropriately. When looking into this first proposal, I spoke to several of the people involved in the industry and asked them what they thought of it. They said that it had really only just been brought to their attention, but it seemed they were in general agreement that these loopholes should be fixed. But they were really quite within their rights. It would seem that the law has not been administered legally, so they were quite within their rights to have made quite a fuss about this, and perhaps to have even sought reimbursement for inappropriate levying. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EThere were several problems. The formula to calculate the proportion of the levy rate for spirits requires the use of the quantity of proof litres for spirits but in fact the calculations were made in various different ways, and in some cases were made according to the amount of alcohol content, particularly in liquor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EHowever, the industry was keen that these loopholes were rectified, and it acted, I felt, in a very cooperative way. But when the industry was invited to submit to the Regulations Review Committee, the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand raised some other very valid points. The Regulations Review Committee determined that in fact these issues were beyond the scope of the bill, but these are still very relevant points, and I invite the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, to perhaps give some indication to this Committee and to the industry itself\u2014particularly the Distilled Spirits Association\u2014as to where the Government might go or whether it will in fact address these other points relating to levies that the association has raised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EThere were three in particular, and they are summed up very well in the commentary on the bill. The first issue is the proposal of a new model of product classification in bands based on alcohol content. Secondly, it suggested a requirement that information about how levy rates are determined are provided to interested parties. Thirdly, there is a suggestion that requirements for officials to consult with and provide advance notice of levies to the industry should be addressed. I would ask the Minister in the chair to give an indication of where he thinks the Government might go and whether it is prepared to take these into account. I realise that it is beyond the scope of this particular piece of legislation, but it was this legislation that raised these issues and brought the distillers before the select committee, and I invite the Minister to comment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EACT will be supporting this bill. We feel that this is a loophole that is long overdue to be fixed, and it is very good of both sides of the House, I think, to say that these issues should have been addressed previously. But I would welcome some comment from the Minister on those points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u002245a3bd08748f454a85e996d1bf1fb14b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245a3bd08748f454a85e996d1bf1fb14b\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I, too, would like to make a brief comment on clause 17, \u201CLevy notices\u201D. As the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, has pointed out, it is an amazing situation in that from Prime Minister Rob Muldoon in 1983 right through to Prime Minister Helen Clark in 2004 these levies have been consistently miscalculated. Since that is a span of some 21 years, I think the Government would be wise to figure out exactly how that sort of situation can be avoided in the future. I wonder, for example, whether the auditors of the Alcohol Advisory Council should have a specific function, every year, to check to make sure that the levies are being calculated correctly. Although the amounts are relatively small, it is in principle a fairly serious matter if a miscalculation continues for 21 years under a number of different regimes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe only other thing I noticed in clause 17\u2014and the Minister in the chair may be able to tell me about this\u2014is that the references in the Act are to the Alcohol Advisory Council Act of 1976, but the actual levy notices from 1983 to year 2000 refer to the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levy notice, before they then revert back to using the word \u201CAlcohol\u201D. So I am not sure whether that signifies some change in the status of the personnel of the council, but it is just a curious fact that we also decided to call something the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levy for all those years and then switch back to something that seems a bit more reasonable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8e15dfd228b4e6cb395e400a5a493b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8e15dfd228b4e6cb395e400a5a493b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I will briefly respond. I understand that that name of the principal Act changed subsequently to use the word \u201CAlcoholic\u201D. On the points raised by Heather Roy and indeed Mr Copeland, I can advise that the Associate Minister of Health is looking at those issues, particularly those raised by the Distilled Spirits Association; we do expect some change in process over the coming year. To Mr Tisch I say that I will get an undertaking from the Minister of Internal Affairs to come back to him with a response to the questions he has raised. I have to confess that I cannot remember what the reasoning was, at this distance of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ad85a10aedde4ec181eeee8107ea6b64\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022edc42367ba8742378f3cae07861a4ff3\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000402\u0022\u003EBill reported without amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000403\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c44d94b8cf89448ba3c712006a0d23dd\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce8f1fc7f12e45c2b76953ab7b76424f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce8f1fc7f12e45c2b76953ab7b76424f\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. There were just two issues, I think, raised during the Committee stage that I would like to refer to at this point. Mr Tisch raised some questions about the nature of the gambling levy and the reasons for some changes in policy, and on those issues I have undertaken to get the Minister of Internal Affairs to come back to him. Heather Roy and Gordon Copeland and others raised issues around the Alcohol Advisory Council levy confirmation, and I gave an undertaking that the Associate Minister of Health was looking at the issues raised in relation to that, particularly to the issues raised by the Distilled Spirits Association.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022c47caaed6601443185b228f816ee9c45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c47caaed6601443185b228f816ee9c45\u0022\u003EDr RICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E We move to the final stage, the third reading debate, of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), which National, along with other parties in this Parliament, supports. I would like to deal with two issues, against the background of the fact that it is a great outcome\u2014the bill has survived the Committee stage without amendment. It is clearly a testimony to the hard work of the Regulations Review Committee in seeing that this legislation was afforded an appropriate, and appropriately close, degree of scrutiny. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI would like to pick up the point that Dr Cullen has made in connection with these problem gambling issues. Although assurances have been offered, those assurances are not delivered on in a timely way. The position is really quite simple in connection with problem gambling. We have two indicators: W1, which is concerned with presentation issues, and W2, with expenditure or turnover issues, and an arbitrary weighting has been assigned. So the W1 weighting carries with it a 90 percent loading, and the W2, the expenditure or turnover indicator, carries a 10 percent weighting. The problem is, of course, that in looking at that first weighting\u2014the 90 percent issue\u2014there is an immediate problem as to how that class is to be properly defined. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in the calculation of the levy, it may very well be the case that included in that problem gambling group is also a substantial group that is affected by the curse of alcohol. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003ESo not only is there an issue as to how the class is defined\u2014the arbitrary nature of the class\u2014but also there is the uncertainty of scope. I have noted what the Minister has said in connection with the assurance he has given, but I hope there will be a response, and a responsive response, within narrow time frames. That is the first point I wish to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe second point deals with issues arising under Subpart 2, and the validation of these payments. As other speakers have said, the situation has arisen where but for this validation, the Government might have been in the position of having to make very substantial repayments. So we spent a significant part of parliamentary time\u2014perhaps not today, in the context of urgency, but in the context of the process of this bill\u2014having to correct a major administrative blunder by patching work done by the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. That, quite clearly, underscores and highlights the need to re-examine and overhaul the primary legislation in its entirety, especially in areas relating to the levy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EFrom the perspective of entities such as the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand, the bill raises an important concern relating to ongoing poor internal processes, monitoring and advice tendered by Government officials on aspects of the levy and the rates, including the Alcohol Advisory Council, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Ministry of Health. It is a pity that it was not possible to meet the needs of the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand by dealing in a substantive way with issues that it raised, which fall outside the scope of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EA changeover from measuring the alcohol content of domestically manufactured and imported spirits, by way of proof litres to litres of alcohol, has not been authorised by the Act; neither has the splitting of spirits as a category into spirits over 23 percent alcohol by volume, and spirits with less than 23 percent alcohol by volume. What is happening here is that as a result of the slowness to reflect the concerns of entities such as the Distilled Spirits Association, the sector has been \u201Cunnecessarily\u201D paying out around $2 million per annum in levies since 1986. That would amount to a total of approximately $36 million. It is a substantial sum. I also note the clear stated commitment of Minister Cullen to have these issues promptly addressed by the relevant Minister in his Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EAs I have said, National is supportive of this legislation. It is legislation that comes before Parliament each year. I simply note that it is appropriate from the perspective of the National Party that this legislation be enacted as soon as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f5156cb94dc74c01ac4393c5733eca1d\u0022\u003ETaxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital andMiscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022776ad4471b5446a5b490a8aa3540ac0f\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000416\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 1 December.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002257a063fa0212472ab12c31f05b0006ce\u0022\u003EPart 5  Amendments to Income Tax Act 2004 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u002277de74706abe43ddab6550e80c4340f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277de74706abe43ddab6550e80c4340f5\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E Part 5 is the decisive part of this bill, because it includes United Future\u2019s amendments to change the thresholds for setting out the taxation rates. Of course, there will be a test for the United Future members when we get to the end of this stage. They are proposing to vote for their amendments, which we understand will be lost because the Greens are voting with Labour on them. But then, the United Future members will vote for the bill, even though the issue of the taxation rates is one of United Future\u2019s main campaigning tools over the next couple of months. Generally, if a party puts up amendments to a bill and they are lost, it votes against the bill. The most critical issue in this bill, which is the setting of the taxation rates, will be resolved in an unsatisfactory way for United Future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u002243b4809db4aa4568a3818b4ebb8f5f47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243b4809db4aa4568a3818b4ebb8f5f47\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E Firstly, I want to follow my colleague the Hon Bill English in urging the Minister to look at and support Supplementary Order Paper 284 in the name of Gordon Copeland of United Future. After all, United Future has been very cooperative with this minority Labour Government. It has now brought in a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that the taxation threshold will be indexed to inflation every year, in order to relieve hard-working New Zealanders from paying too much tax. After all, yesterday the Minister in the chair, Dr Michael Cullen, announced another record forecast surplus of $6.5 billion. There is no reason why New Zealanders should not get tax relief. But more than that, Dr Cullen has also introduced a bill providing for a 5c per litre petrol tax increase that is subject to indexation. So I hope the Minister will take a call and explain to the public why it is that when the Government is gathering revenue, it is acceptable to increase the rate annually according to the movement in the consumer price index, but when it comes to providing relief for hard-working New Zealanders, then the Government will not support that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI challenge United Future not to support this bill in its entirety if the Government does not agree to what is the single most important opportunity for United Future to demonstrate that it has come into Parliament to campaign vigorously for hard-working New Zealanders. All eyes will be on United Future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI also want the Minister in the chair to take a call to answer a question that I will pose to him. One of the provisions in this part allows people who have applied for the grant of a resource consent under the Resource Management Act and been refused consent, or who withdraw the application, to claim a tax deduction for the expenditure they have incurred. I want to know whether that particular provision has been introduced for the benefit of the State-owned enterprise Meridian Energy. When it called off Project Aqua, the company wrote off over $1 million of costs relating to that very ambitious project, so I want to know whether that provision was introduced to benefit that State-owned enterprise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI also want to point out that, interestingly, now we see a taxation provision that grants relief to people who apply unsuccessfully or withdraw their application under the Resource Management Act. It seems to me that the root of that problem is the difficulty people have in getting applications through under that Act. The Labour Government, instead of looking to simplify the Act in order to enable people to have their applications decided swiftly and effectively, is introducing relief by means of a taxation deduction if an application fails or the person withdraws it. That is another example of the Labour Party, instead of treating the real cause of the problem, tending to look at the symptoms. I think lots of people would not look forward to simply deducting expenditure incurred on an application for resource management consent. They would rather have their application approved, or understand that the law will be applied consistently or will be simplified. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI look forward to the Minister taking a call to tell us whether that provision has been introduced because of the failure of Project Aqua by the State-owned enterprise Meridian Energy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002214b91a81fb754f349fac7ecbf2e16525\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214b91a81fb754f349fac7ecbf2e16525\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E We have at last discovered the National Party\u2019s taxation policy, after some five attempts. It is to adopt the proposal by my good friend Gordon Copeland to index the rates on an annual basis. Let me say first of all that United Future\u2014I can speak on its behalf on this occasion\u2014has put up amendments, which will be vetoed. Then, given that United Future has a binding agreement with the Government, it will be voting for the bill, because United Future, unlike National, keeps its word on matters. It does not sign a document and then break its word because it is convenient to do so in a political context. Let me say to Ms Wong what indexation would actually mean in an average year. For the vast majority of taxpayers, in relation to the great National Party tax cuts, the alternative is 22c a week. On average for most taxpayers, 22c a week is what would occur as a result of indexation. For the great majority of the rest, the princely reduction in the demands of the Government\u2014the lifting of the great yoke of the State, which the National Party wants to see\u2014would be $1.77 a week. That will not win an election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00226641094ed12d4aad87769d4fcc2d6c6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226641094ed12d4aad87769d4fcc2d6c6e\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E The United Future amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 284 deserve much more intellectual honesty than the Minister of Revenue gave them in that 30-second burst. We are not debating an average year here. United Future has not proposed indexation on some mythical average that the Minister\u2019s minions have calculated; it has proposed quite specific changes in the thresholds. For instance, it has proposed moving the low-income rebate threshold from $9,500 to $10,750. That will make a great deal more difference than 22c a week. In proposed new clause 229A, United Future wants to shift the threshold from $38,000 to $43,000. At the rate of 30c in the dollar at $5,000, that is about $1,600 a year, not 22c a week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWhat permeates the relationship between Labour and United Future is an agreement to mislead, shall we say. They play these fancy little games. United Future has put up a serious proposition, in the light of the circumstances that my colleague Pansy Wong has pointed out. The Government has collected $34 billion more tax over the last 4 years. Yesterday it projected the largest surpluses ever. Taxation revenue is going up faster than ever, and it will become one of the biggest issues of election year. Why should working people not get the benefit of a growing economy? Why should it all go to Dr Cullen and to his colleagues\u2019 favourite political projects? It is just the sheer unfairness of it. The Government reaps all the benefits, yet the people who do the work do not reap the benefits of a growing economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EUnited Future will go through the charade of putting up its nice little proposition, then turning round and voting for the Government, against what it has proposed. It will continue its track record of keeping in Government a Government that does all of the things its voters are opposed to. There is not a single United Future voter who wanted to support a Government that passed the Civil Union Bill. There is not a single United Future voter who wanted to support a Government that collected record levels of tax, then had record levels of Government spending, with record levels of recklessness in that Government spending. That is not what United Future voters put Peter Dunne and Mr Copeland into Parliament to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI compliment United Future on having before the Committee today a set of amendments that are directly relevant to what will be one of the biggest issues in election year\u2014whether the Government is collecting too much tax. We agree with United Future that the Government is collecting far too much tax\u2014much more than it expected, but, worse than that, much more than it can effectively spend. The Government is now reduced to throwing good money after bad at categories of spending, just to get rid of it, just so that it can say it will not reduce taxes. I say to United Future members that it is time they stood by some of their principles. We are not asking them to stand by all the principles their voters voted for, but, let us say, just one or two. If United Future members vote for these amendments\u2014and we will vote with them on these amendments, because they are good amendments that will reduce the burden of taxation on working people\u2014then if they are serious about any of this, they will have to follow through on it and vote against the Government by voting against the whole bill. These amendments relate to what is by far the most important and critical part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI also found the Minister\u2019s comments on the indexation of petrol tax quite specious. Why will the Government index those tax mechanisms when it suits it, by automatically increasing the revenue, even if it is only by a small amount? I am sure that the indexation of petrol is worth less than 22c a week per person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002284b60d37876e488bb905d69dfdf638b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284b60d37876e488bb905d69dfdf638b1\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E ACT also supports United Future\u2019s amendments, but if they do not go through, we will be voting against this bill\u2014unlike United Future. We actually believe that we should vote according to our principles, not according to political expedience. I know that a United Future member fasted for 21 days in order to stop the Civil Union Bill, then got a message from God about a 59:59 vote on a taxation bill. United Future could have sunk the Civil Union Bill with one vote. But what did it do? Its members walked in, like ducks to the slaughter, and voted for it. Here we have the United Future members supporting a Government that has taxed and spent like none other. They have come down to the Chamber with amendments to this bill the Government will veto, yet they will turn round and vote for the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f799121abe2d4620a949aa1ac10e469c\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, shocking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab47d330ebb549d5b16d21bc9cf04ec9\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It is shocking and I just do not understand it. But Mr Copeland does have a point, and it is this: last week in the House the Hon Dr Michael Cullen admitted that after 5 long years of Labour\u2019s great administration, the average household, after tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9d630e174da4c97abfe3892a84763fc\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eca27f5a0b3b4518994635d6667121b0\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: I see that Mr Cosgrove agrees with this point. After 5 years of economic growth, the average household, after tax, is no better off in real terms. What else did Michael Cullen admit to the House last week? He admitted that that same average household is having to give an extra $2,910 in real terms, which is an increase of $3,000 in 5 years, to the Government. That is the trouble with this taxation bill. Hard-working New Zealanders are worse off under Labour because they are paying so much more tax. We have \u201CScrooge McCullen\u201D sitting there awash in their tax dollars\u2014he is swimming in their tax dollars\u2014so why does he not, for Christmas, provide a bit of tax relief?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EUnited Future and Mr Copeland are going about it in the wrong way. When members turn up to Parliament they do not just promise their votes to a Government no matter what.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221385a1e021d34c02a121d5cd52acac37\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022397fd700db5c4122a8f5aa18232062f8\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: No, one does not, and I say to Bill English that the ACT party will not be doing that next year with the National Party. We will not be promising support to the new Government no matter what. There will be a price. But United Future comes along and joins the anti-Christian, high-tax, and high-spend Labour Party. It says: \u201CTake us for granted for the next 3 years, and we will go down to the House and talk about things but never deliver.\u201D I say to Mr Copeland that when people vote us into this great Parliament of ours, they expect a bit more than \u201Cpoodle power\u201D when we get here. They actually want members to stand up here and say what they believe, and to vote accordingly\u2014not vote for the opposite of what they talk about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI say to Mr Copeland that there is a fallacy in the whole idea of indexing thresholds and, indeed, income splitting. It is this: why do we have a progressive tax rate to begin with? Why does someone who earns twice as much pay three, four, or five times more tax than he or she otherwise would? What is fair about that? That is why the ACT party stands for a flattening of the tax rate\u2014so that someone who earns twice as much pays twice as much tax, not three times as much. I say to Mr Copeland that if we did that, we would not need to worry about indexing the rates, because we would have a tax rate system that was fair, efficient, and good for the economy. One simple rate would also overcome any concern about income splitting between a man and his wife, and all the attendant problems of such income splitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a036443696c04973b965b46cf2470a94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a036443696c04973b965b46cf2470a94\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E The fact is\u2014speaking to my Supplementary Order Paper\u2014that if the tax brackets are not adjusted for inflation, taxes are increasing in real terms. I will give members an example. A person earning $38,000 in the year 2000, now needs $43,000 just to stand still in terms of purchasing power. However, the tax rate on the last $5,000 has moved from 19.5c to 33c, an increase of 13.5c, $675 per annum, or $56.25 per month. In real terms, people are now less well off than they were in the year 2000. I contrast that with the commitment made by Helen Clark in 1999. She said that there would be no rise in income tax for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60,000 a year, and no increases in GST or company tax. The Minister was good enough to say, a few moments ago, that United Future was a party that kept its word. I challenge the Labour Party today as to whether it is a party that keeps its word. Because how is that commitment made by Helen Clark in 1999 to be understood? Is it to be understood as meaning that the current rates will remain unchanged in the long term? If not, when will they be changed? Does it literally mean that there will be no rise in income tax, etc.? If that is the case, then the Government has clearly broken its promise and its commitment to the people of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWhat about the fact that only 78 percent of New Zealanders now earn under $60,000 a year? What about the missing 17 percent? Do they not matter? Let us look at the facts. The number of taxpayers paying the 19.5c rate has dropped by 144,000, the number of taxpayers paying tax at 33c has increased by 106,000, and the number of people paying tax at 39c has increased by 150,000. How can that be squared with the statement and the commitment that there would be no rise in income tax? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWhy will the Government not move on this matter? Is it because the estimated $714 million per annum cost is unaffordable? That is hardly likely, in view of the extra $4.5 billion over and above the Budget that has been collected in the last 3 years alone. Is it not about time to share some of that surplus with the people of this country? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EBelieve it or not, a couple of parties in this Parliament\u2014I refer to the Labour Party and the Green Party\u2014believe that the reasonable proposal in my Supplementary Order Paper to index tax brackets for inflation is no more than a tax cut for the rich. In response, I say that, under the proposal put forward by United Future every taxpayer in New Zealand earning more than $9,500 a year would receive a tax cut. That is the first point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe second point is that if Green Party and Labour Party members believe that, say, a single-income person supporting a wife and three kids and earning 60 grand a year is rich, my response is that those members should get real. That person is far from rich; he is struggling and is going more deeply into debt each day, as we speak. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EMembers also have to face the fact that the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Canada, have all adopted bracket creep legislation\u2014an automatic adjustment to the brackets in a progressive taxation system, when inflation moves beyond a certain level. If it happens in those countries, why, for goodness\u2019 sake, does it not happen here? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI want to say very, very clearly indeed that it is time for taxes in New Zealand to be cut, to be reduced. There is no reason at all\u2014economically, fiscally, socially, and particularly in terms of social justice\u2014to continue to take more money out of people\u2019s pockets than the Government really needs. In fact, Michael Cullen himself said in yesterday\u2019s press release on the Budget Policy Statement that the Government is going to bank some of it and spend the rest. There is a great, great future for the New Zealand taxpayer: \u201CYou pay more tax; we\u2019ll bank some of it and spend the rest.\u201D!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f989c6347dec4100a0e75292f101fd2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f989c6347dec4100a0e75292f101fd2b\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to engage in the Committee stage debate on Part 5. This legislation really cuts to the heart of the problem with the Labour Government. This is a Government that believes that it can spend taxpayers\u2019 money better than they can themselves\u2014a Government that thinks that if it spends money it has no impact on monetary policy, but if taxpayers go out there and spend money themselves it has an impact on monetary policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EYesterday we saw a classic moment in voodoo economics from Michael Cullen. It was unbelievable. He was out there telling the business community of New Zealand he was going to give them some indirect tax cuts\u2014because he does not believe in direct tax cuts\u2014but what he did not quite tell them was that he will introduce his carbon tax credit on one hand, but he will tax them with his carbon tax on the other hand; he will get that money and give it to businesses on the other side. That is right\u2014I see that Darren Hughes has finally woken up to realise that the infamous indirect tax cut is not a tax cut at all; it is just another tax being added to the other 30 tax increases we have had this year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENational will support United Future\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper on indexation. We will proudly support this proposal, which is a lot better than what the Government did with its plans to index petrol. Darren Hughes is looking equally confused. He needs to get with the programme and find out what is actually going on in the economic department of his own Government. The Government decided that it was going to index petrol in New Zealand. That is a very significant event. It is going to allow the Minister of Finance, every year, to increase petrol tax at the rate of inflation, without coming to Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EAnd guess what the Minister of Finance did with that little piece of information? He forgot to tell the people of New Zealand. He left it off the press release. In February, 2 months afterwards, we pointed out to him that he had forgotten to tell the people of New Zealand that he was introducing an indexation of petrol taxes. At exactly the same time, with his coalition partner over there\u2014his confidence and supply partner\u2014he did not want to have a bar of indexation when it came to income tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThere is a very good reason why income bands in New Zealand need to be adjusted. When Labour came into office it told New Zealanders that 5 percent of all New Zealand workers would pay the top personal tax rate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2610cca396c47348ab66dad19cd8e51\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: It wasn\u2019t true back then!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022197173300d57426fbafc306c05cc4067\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Hide is quite right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf8cb3aa7bf442f0908ba1f948f3a7f8\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: It was 7 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ade4dbd534d14fe1b2d5a8de95bd9258\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It was 7 per cent back then. Interestingly enough, the Government did not quite mention the number of full-time taxpayers the top rate would apply to. Back in 1999 the figure was about 10 percent\u2014one in 10 full-time taxpayers paid the top rate of taxation in New Zealand. They were the elite rich of New Zealand, and they paid the top rate of personal taxation, because they were lucky enough to earn income of over $60,000\u2014one in 10 of them. Interestingly enough, when we look around today the number has risen from one in 10. I see Mr Cosgrove is holding up a sign saying that it must be 11 percent, I hear the Hon George Hawkins is saying that it has to be 12 percent, and Darren Hughes always thinks big, so that might be 15 percent. No, it is not 15 percent, 11 percent, or 12 percent. Think big\u2014that was a good idea back in the old days\u201422 percent of New Zealanders now pay the top rate of taxation. That is one in four. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd00d9dffd1f4c8ea3e308b15816fdf3\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: No, 22 percent of full-time workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6d6116d250b4f999bd73ef01e8fa462\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Twenty-two percent of full-time workers pay the top rate of taxation. One in four secondary school teachers in New Zealand pay the top rate of taxation. One in four secondary school teachers\u2014they are the elite rich of New Zealand! They are schoolteachers\u2014one in four of them, which is 22 percent. Well, yesterday when Dr Cullen was swiftly telling the country how he has so much more tax revenue but he does not have anything to give back to anybody else, he forgot to tell the good people of New Zealand that he does not change the income brackets where tax rates cut in in New Zealand. That will take until about 2009, when one in three full-time workers in New Zealanders will be paying the top rate of taxation\u2014one in three. They are the elite rich, are they?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c99d4b377f7b4d5193d2927839adbdc3\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Give us a detailed alternative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a6155c9f07c4be68908373dd734daf6\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, why do we not look at what the OECD said to Australia when it criticised that country for having the top personal rate of tax that cut in at A$80,000?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fa98a04c2f546aa9a40548e6d737009\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Name it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228813db7d0fbb44e9b1da28c7378031c9\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The OECD\u2014it is a Paris-based organisation. Darren Hughes may have heard of it. That Paris-based organisation criticised Australia for doing that. This is a disgrace. This Government wants to take hard-earned taxpayer dollars from New Zealanders, but it does not want to give anything back to those people. It does not want to do that slightly, but in a big way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd3dc6e9bec24e9fa7e887b4611626c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd3dc6e9bec24e9fa7e887b4611626c0\u0022\u003EKENNETH WANG (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It is quite ironic that members all sit here at the end of the year talking about tax, while the Government sits on a record high tax revenue under its feet. I am probably in a unique position in talking about this issue, because I am the newest MP coming from the bottom end of this society, as I regard myself as a hard-working New Zealander. We are talking about a tax bill that applies to every New Zealander who has an income. It is ironic that we are talking about a high tax rate of 39c in the dollar applying to everyone earning above $60,000 a year in income. We regard that as a high income, but I regard it as a petty income, because by international standards, that is not high. Compared with our neighbour, NZ$60,000, by the exchange rate, would probably go down to about $50,000. If any of us relied on that income to support the average family of four, to pay for everything from household costs, power, water, rental costs, kids\u2019 school costs, food, and clothes, we would know that what was regarded as the high salary level was really a petty amount. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003EFrom my personal experience, I know how hard every dad and mum works to support the family household. I know how hard it is. I know they desperately need their reward back in their own hands rather than having to wait until the Government hands it out. I know that having the Government handing it out has its own criteria. When those people desperately need a handout, they have to apply for it. Well, would they get anything? That would be determined by the Government\u2019s agenda. That is a political agenda, and it is according to the Government\u2019s own wish, which is to buy the vote during the term and hope that it will win another term. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003EI have kids. I have a family and, particularly, I know my staff and I know my neighbour. My neighbour is a typical working-class Indian. He is working full time, supporting his family. He has an income of very little. He told me that he wished he could earn more and keep more, but it is out of his hands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003EPerhaps members still remember one of the stories that I quoted in my maiden speech. A taxi driver was working 12 hours a day and 60 hours a week, and his words were: \u201CWhere\u2019s the money? The Government is sitting on a big pot of money and it\u2019s not in my pocket.\u201D His request was: \u201CPlease don\u2019t take it away. Let me keep it.\u201D Well, I am the person coming fresh from this society, and from every working family in our society. I bring their request to this Chamber, directly to all of the MPs who will vote on this bill. I congratulate United Future. Good on you, for standing on your feet to speak on your amendment, but I do have a question for you. If your amendment does not go through, will you still support this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221712006f60944f59a0b8bb9063205f72\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member must not refer to the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ca9c3e6b-0b6d-46d7-ba14-2ca250fbaa75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226db33db381cb48baa8a5617291d28cdf\u0022\u003EKENNETH WANG\u003C/span\u003E: I would say that the ACT party\u2019s flat tax, or universal tax cut, to both company and personal income tax is the remedy to really resolve this whole issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbc1c64d46c7462aa5458e5d754d2a4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbc1c64d46c7462aa5458e5d754d2a4d\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E The Hon Michael Cullen, who was the Minister in the chair earlier, was good enough to take a call to answer some of the issues that I raised. I challenge the current Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, to also take a call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0db5cd7e64a4e388e48283c7ea2fefa\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Who?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022345c2afc6a2340228ee9ff758ceac402\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: I have problems explaining to my colleagues just who the Hon David Cunliffe is. I am afraid he might have to make more visits in Auckland. I think his biggest problem is that he campaigns in west Auckland, but lives in central Auckland. That may be causing the confusion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe Hon Michael Cullen was good enough to take a call, laugh off United Future\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper 284, and say that United Future\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper\u2019s indexation would give back to a household only about a dollar a week. But that same Minister, when he introduced the bill to index the petrol tax increase, gave the same reason. He said that it would cost the household about a dollar a week, and that it was no big deal. So it seems to me that if the Minister of Finance thought that it was no big deal, why not reward that amount to hard-working New Zealanders? We in National believe that is a very small step, but it would be a step in the right direction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EA Minister cannot laugh off the petrol tax indexation as no big deal, then not support United Future\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper to index the rate of income. But, as my learned colleague the Hon Bill English pointed out, that was a misleading statement anyway, because United Future brought to the Committee a very sensible Supplementary Order Paper on adjusting the tax threshold. The only problem is that United Future is not committed to see it through. Now, that party campaigned on integrity and on battling for its supporters, but I am afraid that it will not see this bill through by voting against it, because every other party apart from Labour and, I think, the Progressives is against this bill. United Future has the single opportunity to make a difference in its 3-year term in this Parliament, by showing that it is serious about representing the hard-working, middle New Zealanders. So all eyes will be on United Future members to take their fight to the end and to challenge the minority Labour Government to show its respect for United Future by supporting this Supplementary Order Paper, because in the words of Dr Michael Cullen: \u201CThis indexation is no big deal.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI look forward to the Minister in the chair taking a call to explain to his good friends, United Future members, why the Government would not support their Supplementary Order Paper. It certainly would make a hole in the $6.5 billion tax surplus that was announced yesterday. It is obscene for the Government to tax New Zealanders to the extent that it has brought in an additional $34 billion in tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b248bcfd11a48499a770f7e021e8a57\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: Good Government!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5e9eac274134eac9d6dc722ac4d70e4\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, a good Government! That is wonderful to hear. Now we know that the Labour member\u2019s idea of a good Government is to rip off hard-working New Zealanders. We can see that is just what Labour MPs believe. I think the electorates will have something else to say in the election year, to show Labour MPs that a good Government is one that is considerate and compassionate to hard-working New Zealanders, and would not tax them so it can waste that money on community education in polytechnics!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022 data-id=\u00221f573376aa8c4880b85f867db58f2d82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f573376aa8c4880b85f867db58f2d82\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022affbac2f2bd14a48a1b104ad75992218\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022affbac2f2bd14a48a1b104ad75992218\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The mistake we are making in this debate is that we are concentrating a lot on the surplus, and not enough on Government expenditure. It is not just the surplus that should be returned to New Zealanders but also a whole lot of Government spending that this Government has overseen, which is a disgrace. Just last week we learnt that hard-working Kiwis are being squeezed so they are no better off, that they are paying more in tax than they have ever done in their lives, and that Jim Anderton is taking money so he can spray it around multinational companies and their multimillion-dollar chief executives. Then we discovered that when the Auditor-General went in there to have a squiz, the officials did not even know whom they had been giving it to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f44b5e2f379498dbf0bee0ee3315f9a\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Did they know who Jim Anderton was?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278e7bf3ed7a24cf0b3117387b16a690c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: They did not even know where Jim Anderton was. They could not find where that taxpayers\u2019 money was going. They said it was spent last year and they did not have records on it, because they had been \u201Cupdating our systems \u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8cdd1307f50418282b2b7d037d2b0ab\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Was it a few thousand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280bdbad3a2174fb7840440890a53bc1c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It was a few million. Jim Anderton said that there had been some problems because the officials had not been dotting every \u201Ci\u201D and crossing every \u201Ct\u201D, and they were not into very much red tape. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EHere is another thing that the Auditor-General found out about how this Government spends taxpayers\u2019 money. He found that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise\u2014which Helen Clark used to talk about once, and which Jim Anderton used to want to get on TV and on radio to talk about at every opportunity, and then suddenly he was nowhere to be seen\u2014that great department, was spending money without regard to Cabinet criteria. So the Government, which Mr Copeland will vote to support in terms of this bill, was taking taxpayers\u2019 money and spending it contrary to the intent of Parliament and Cabinet. That is what it was doing. Does this Government care about that? No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWhat else did we find out from the Auditor-General\u2019s report? We found that the money was being taken off hard-working taxpayers and spent, and there was no monitoring or follow-up. I would like to know what Mr David Cunliffe thinks about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a002a4331d54a2e81c25347550fa614\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: He is happy with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c724d4cd69ff40b9b4ccf005386df57a\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Cunliffe is over the moon about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257ce414d471b4d69ba584345b275f3b8\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s ecstatic!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca28199545b842c59891e4ccb9124a40\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: He is ecstatic over it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c1a8cb4e0eb43d896261c65071cc706\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Business as normal!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022695addbb5e40441ba2d01a0cce12c62d\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it is not his money; why would he worry? Mr Cunliffe is sitting over an administration that, first, does not know where some of the money has been spent, second, spent money not according to the criteria that Cabinet has laid down, and third, spent it without any monitoring. Do members know what Jim Anderton\u2019s response was? He said that the Auditor-General did not find that it was not effective spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c21908389f6141e8990fdfa97a4ca29d\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: He did not know who Jim Anderton was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242a6a089128d4319bc6f4e49e9a4c1ed\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, actually, there is a reason for that: the Auditor-General could not find the spending. He could not find where the money was being spent, let alone determine whether it was effective spending. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThis Government has no comprehension of what it is to work hard, pay one\u2019s taxes, have nothing left at the end of the week, and watch a socialist, greedy Government\u2014headed up by Michael Cullen, sitting in that chair by David Cunliffe\u2014that is awash with taxpayers\u2019 cash spend it like there is no tomorrow. The Government is piling up surpluses like some giant Scrooge McDuck, swimming in cash, and telling New Zealanders that they can go and eat cake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI just say this to the United Future party. The United Future party is right about the need for lower taxes. Its amendments to this bill are right. All that the United Future party members need to do is to vote according to their principles, vote according to what they have said in this Committee they stand for, and vote according to what they told the New Zealand people they were going to Parliament to do. They should stop criticising the Government, and just vote against this dopey bill. That is all that United Future needs to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab220977a5bd4e04bf8a9fbefb4eecac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab220977a5bd4e04bf8a9fbefb4eecac\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220a19b0c2027c464baeed21d4df3ad452\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022755b717428a94454b46a965d5ed87b2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022755b717428a94454b46a965d5ed87b2e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: There were a number of amendments proposed to Part 5 by Gordon Copeland. They were vetoed. The relevant certificate has been sitting on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new clause 236 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022604b888bd4b740d48c61b15644623fb7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ad7fee9e41fa4abaa5be0cd87e695622\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b3e399dada6d4826a32d9d058631d333\u0022\u003ESchedule\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002269cde5403c4a418ab3653dc76a6ef12a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u002217a596572b654502bab9c700007eb7f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217a596572b654502bab9c700007eb7f9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: A new schedule 2 has been proposed by Rod Donald, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in his name. That amendment is inconsistent with the decision of the Committee on Part 1, which confirmed the rates of taxation set out in schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 1994. The amendment is therefore out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002259950e428c9d4e17a1fed30cdb9a459e\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2dc6cd3642244e4919f355918a0f7c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2dc6cd3642244e4919f355918a0f7c0\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E The Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is pretty important legislation going through Parliament at the moment. I want to raise, if I can, what is so wrong, not just with the education policies of the Minister of Education\u2014that is, until he gets the flick, or whatever will happen to him on Monday in the Cabinet reshuffle, because if Margaret Wilson is to be the Speaker, goodness only knows where Trevor Mallard will go! Anyway, we will assume that he will be the Minister of Customs on Monday. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThis is what is so wrong with annual rates being confirmed in this legislation. This is about a Government that came into office and told the people of New Zealand that 5 percent of all taxpayers would pay the top personal rate\u2014and that was wrong. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and the number of people paying the top personal rate is progressively getting larger and larger. However, the Government says that it does not want to give anything back to the people who actually make income in New Zealand, irrespective of whether they pay the top, middle, or bottom rate. It does not want to give anything back to the people who contribute to our society and work very hard. Dr Michael Cullen wants to keep the money so that he can go on a bit of a vote-buying exercise. The tragedy of that position is that so many New Zealanders at this time of year will be feeling the pinch. They will look at their credit card bill and rising mortgage and they will wish that they had a little bit of extra money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe Reserve Bank made an interesting observation. It noted for the Finance and Expenditure Committee just recently that household debt in New Zealand has moved in the last 5 years from being 100 percent of average household income, to 130 percent. At a time when the economy has been doing pretty well, when the growth rate has been, on average, about 3.7 percent, for the last 10 years, not just the last 5 years\u2014through nothing of this Government\u2019s doing\u2014at a time when it has been lucky enough to babysit one of the largest surpluses in New Zealand\u2019s history, New Zealanders up and down the country are being overtaxed and having to raise money on their own mortgage to make ends meet. That is what is happening out there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt is OK for Dr Cullen to improve the Crown\u2019s financial balance sheet, OK for Dr Cullen to have plenty of money to spend on anything and everything in the weird and wacky file, but it is not OK for New Zealanders who are struggling to make ends meet to have a little more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to refer to just how large that spending programme has been, funded on the back of those annual rates. Yesterday, we had the Budget Policy Statement\u2014the 6-months stocktake, if one likes. Basically, Dr Cullen did not have quite enough courage to tell the people of New Zealand that there would not be a tax cut. He sort of tried to meander around that issue. He did not quite say whether there would be or would not be one, but essentially, in his press release, he said there was no room for tax cuts. When he was asked a hard question at the press conference he did not quite want to answer it, because he knows that the case for tax cuts is now irrefutable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EHe knows that, because he has looked at the numbers, just as the National Party has looked at the numbers. The Government is telling the very New Zealanders who are being told there is no room for tax cuts that next year, after the Government has paid its entire operating surplus\u2014everything it does to run the country\u2014and after it has paid its entire capital budget, everything it wants to spend in funds, on student loans, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, roads in Auckland, and anything else it might want to spend money on, after it has paid for all of that, it will have $1.5 billion in cash hanging around. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThat is absolutely unbelievable. The Government is so flush with cash that it cancelled the 2005 January bond tender. It does not need it. At a time when household debt is going through the roof, because New Zealanders are being squeezed, and it is OK for them to have three credit cards, it is OK for New Zealanders to work hard on two or three jobs to pay the bills, the Government has $1.5 billion of surplus cash. It is a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022d539f31a03544798bad7a0efd787dc56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d539f31a03544798bad7a0efd787dc56\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I have a brief comment on clause 1, the title. This bill, as the title reflects\u2014the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u2014does fix the annual rates for another year. It does contain provisions that will assist the promotion of venture capital in New Zealand by non-residents. It contains a number of miscellaneous provisions such as preventing the sale and lease-back of intangibles, and thus, the fiscal risk attached to that, the early payment of rebates of income tax, provisions around horticultural plants, dispute procedures, Australian unit trusts, and so on. In many ways it is a mechanical bill. It is part of the good governance that is required to ensure the security of the fiscal base. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIn this short call I wish to make two points on the issue of taxation rates. The first is that we have heard a number of arguments from the Opposition that the Government has money in the coffers, and why does it not spend it. Whether it is spent by giving tax cuts or expenditure increases is essentially an accounting identity. It does not make any difference to the fiscal balance. However, the Opposition members are Keynesians in reverse. They are not prepared to spend when we are down on the cycle, and thus they make it worse. They want us to spend when we are at the top of the cycle, causing an overheat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI have two words for the Opposition\u2014\u201CAllan Bollard\u201D. Why those two words? If we increase spending or give tax cuts now by more than we can afford, that will have the effect of raising interest rates, and in turn, raising the exchange rate. The Opposition\u2019s argument that the Government is flush with tax implies that Opposition members have not even read the December economic forecast. If they had, they would know that the Government will be in a cash-negative situation by 2006 with about a $700 million cash borrowing requirement, and about a $1.5 billion cash borrowing requirement the following year. So this rhetoric about \u201Crolling in dough\u201D is simply that\u2014just rhetoric. This Government is committed to good prudent fiscal management, and that is what this bill delivers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022668022784cc54dafbf6afb2619c2e0b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022668022784cc54dafbf6afb2619c2e0b5\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E The previous speech demonstrates that the Minister may like to give the impression that he knows a lot, but he just has no judgment. Because the issues involved in this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292790fedcec8423a9e8f88be658258e7\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: He went to Harvard!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c959f334e4b4763a85d9f85270a4657\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: What a waste of money that was! He may as well have done one of Steve Maharey\u2019s dodgy community education courses, because it has made no difference. The issue involved here is a matter of judgment. This bill sets out tax rates, and the question the Minister needs to answer is this: under what conditions does he think the Government would have enough money to reduce taxes? Because the conditions the Government enjoys now were never imagined in my adult lifetime. In 40 years of government in New Zealand, going right back to 1960, there has never been anything like this. Fortunately, on the way through, there have been Governments that have had the judgment to say that they have enough money to reduce taxes, so the workers who go to work every day and earn an income can keep a bigger share of what they work for. This Government is unable to exercise that judgment, because it does not have any judgment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EHe is right: the Government regards this bill as mechanical. The business of raising taxes is purely mechanical. It is like getting in one\u2019s combine harvester and just driving into the paddock and going until it stops, because then the fun bit is how one spends it. That is what Labour has always been about. It has no interest in the incentives that people face, no interest in their aspirations, no interest in a reasonable balance between what the Government takes from economic growth and what the people keep, who actually create that economic growth. It is purely the mechanical business of raising as much tax as possible and then getting on with the party of spending. And oh, what a party! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe leader of ACT is quite right: the biggest issue actually is what is happening to this money. If we are going to raise so much, what are we going to do with it? I raised questions yesterday in the House just in my portfolio, about Steve Maharey, the Minister for tertiary education, having in the last 4 years spent $1.5 billion on certificate and diploma courses that were never finished. He has spent $1.5 billon on New Zealanders who never finished the courses they started. I have found that that figure is so big, no one believes it. If he had spent that $1.5 billion only on the people who completed the courses, every working family in New Zealand could have a tax cut of about $50 or $60 a week. He regards that as just a minor issue and he does not quite believe the figures himself\u2014yet. That is just one example. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThis bill is giving permission to Ministers to do more and more of that kind of reckless spending. That is how Ministers see this. They see it as a licence not to print money but to spend the money that other people make. There is no restraint. Dr Cullen has decided to pitch himself as a fiscal conservative, who is tight with the spending, and his Ministers, unfortunately, seem to think that he is tight with spending. That is how distorted this Government\u2019s view has become. They think they are being tight with spending, when over the next 3 or 4 years they plan to spend $13 billion from the last Budget, and in the December Economic and Fiscal Update yesterday they put it up to a total of $23 billion over the next 4 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThey are huge amounts of money, and as my colleague Mr Key has pointed out, household debt is going up. So the Government is improving its situation dramatically at the expense of households that are borrowing, short term and long term\u2014short term at high interest rates\u2014in order to meet their requirements, whereas the Government is keeping more than it should. That is why United Future should take the courage of its convictions in its own hands and vote against the bill. Because United Future voters are opposed to an endlessly taxing Government and an endlessly spending Government. United Future should vote against it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u00220cab684df3164e43b1a76d7eac0fd93c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220cab684df3164e43b1a76d7eac0fd93c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It was marvellous to see David Cunliffe stand up and explain this bill, but did he talk about the annual tax rates? No, he did not. He was prepared only to stand up and debate the title, to explain it to the listening public, and to have that recorded in Hansard. One of the problems with Dr Cullen\u2019s history degree and with Mr David Cunliffe\u2019s studying away at Harvard\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and they have worked at this\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270272a026a4a4af5bcb1cd475725efda\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Twice was enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba7d58b39d5c4f058c19c1b539e9d37b\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: The trouble with Mr David Cunliffe and Dr Michael Cullen is that although they have done all that studying they have not worked out a couple of basic things that every household in the country can grasp. The first is that Michael Cullen thinks there is something magical about a dollar that he takes from a working person and spends. He says: \u201CWhen I spend the money, it\u2019s not inflationary.\u201D But then he comes out with this Labour Party doublespeak that if he lets the poor worker keep the dollar in the first place, that is called spending. When this Government talks about tax cuts, it says they are like spending money. They are not like spending money; a tax cut is just letting people keep what they earn. I would like David Cunliffe to reflect on that and explain how a tax cut can be spending money. It is not spending money; it is letting people keep what they earn. If I as a Government take a dollar from someone and spend it, as Michael Cullen does, it is called tax and spend, and I understand that. If I let the worker keep that dollar, it is called letting him keep it\u2014it is not spending the money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EAnother thing that Michael Cullen and David Cunliffe cannot understand, but everyone else can, is that tax does matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e855dfa2824c48efbc62e3af50d3fc25\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e6191f5e8af4d639221bd448f7425e8\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Tax does matter. Michael Cullen has stood in this Chamber time and time again and said that it does not matter how much tax we take from people\u2014that they will work just as hard, they will invest just as much, and they will be just as entrepreneurial, no matter what. That defies all experience, all logic, all common sense. When he reaches around for an example to illustrate his great economic insight he draws upon the experience of MPs, and he says that Labour Party MPs would not work any harder or any less, whether or not they had a tax cut. Well, I have to explain to Mr Cunliffe and to Dr Michael Cullen that tax does matter and people are not stupid. They are not going to work their guts out and they are not going to invest their dollars in a country where the Government comes along and takes the money from them\u2014takes away any reward that they get. That is what this Government is doing. We are in a situation now where working people face an effective tax rate of 91c in the dollar. If people double the number of hours they work, they find that for every extra dollar they earn they get to keep only 9c.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWell, I do not think David Cunliffe would do that. I do not think Michael Cullen would do that. Yet they stand up here and pretend that tax rates do not matter. Well, Mr Cunliffe is absolutely wrong. He should be taking this money and returning it to New Zealanders as part of a Christmas bonus. I say to Mr Copeland that he is well on the way with his proposal to increase the thresholds, but would it not be better to drop the tax rates and actually drop Government expenditure? It seems quite simple to me, when one sees how Trevor Mallard, Steve Maharey, Parekura Horomia, and Jim Anderton spend money\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ebf7bb237374391a150eba31fe9c26a\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: When you see how Donna spends money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233a7241c00ff47e4aa5f59b8f3046e67\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Jill Pettis raises a good point. Where did Donna Awatere Huata get the money from? The Labour Government! The Labour Government gave it to her. Trevor Mallard gave the money out. It is very, very simple. Trevor Mallard gave the money out, so Donna Awatere Huata spent it. That is the trouble with our taxation. We would not see that, I say to Mr Mallard, if people were spending their own money that they had earned\u2014not that member spending other people\u2019s money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u00227ee6c4dfef1249669ddcd6188d422b85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ee6c4dfef1249669ddcd6188d422b85\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E We are debating clause 1, the title. I believe that the bill should be called the \u201CTaxation (Still Putting Foreign Investors First and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u201D. Why should it be called that? I am obviously referring to the venture capital provisions. I have always said, in speaking to this bill, that I disagree with giving certain non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies. That disadvantages New Zealand - resident venture capital investors. Even proponents of those provisions say they will not attract the appropriate capital that is needed\u2014the purpose and reason for creating them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EI will show Labour Governments\u2019 track record of putting foreign investors, not New Zealand investors and not New Zealanders, first. Between 1984 and 1990 a Labour Government sold to foreign investors New Zealand Steel, Petrocorp, Health Computing Services, the Development Finance Corporation, PostBank, the Shipping Corporation, Air New Zealand, Landcorp Financial Instruments, the Rural Bank, the Government Printing Office, the National Film Unit, Communicate New Zealand, the State Insurance Office, the Tourist Hotel Corporation, New Zealand Liquid Fuel Investment, M\u0101ui Gas, Telecom, and forestry - cutting rights\u2014to the tune of $10.1 billion. That is right\u2014$10.1 billion. I thought that, when this Labour Government came in in 1999, it promised to stop putting foreign investors first and to start putting New Zealanders first, but it did not do that. We can see the fruition of its policy in the venture capital provisions of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, and very sadly, National was not much better as far as putting foreign investors first goes. That is probably one of the reasons National members are supporting the venture capital provisions in this bill. National sold $6.36 billion worth of State-owned assets to foreign-owned companies: the Export Guarantee Office, the Government Supply Brokerage Corporation, mortgages held by the Housing Corporation of New Zealand, Taranaki petroleum-mining licences, the Bank of New Zealand\u2014yes, we do remember the Bank of New Zealand\u2014New Zealand Rail, Wrightson rights, Fletcher Challenge Ltd shares, the M\u0101ori Development Corporation, the Radio Company Ltd, the Forestry Corporation, the Ministry of Works\u2019 civil construction arm, and New Zealand Timberlands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccf5ec0a61d845aa914c6a3509ee5719\u0022\u003EPita Paraone\u003C/span\u003E: A headache.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba23c9d4c0e44d2cb13e87edc5e57d0b\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. My colleague says one gets a headache listening to it, because it is so sad. It is so sad because the foreign investors of the global market have taken advantage of New Zealanders, and the previous Labour Government and successive National Governments have allowed them to do that. I think that has been devastating for the country, and we are still paying for the consequences of those actions, years and years later. Another name for the bill could be the \u201CTaxation\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295265b70198e487495d5cc28fda843c7\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Drum roll.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f47cf86633584c81a86ff054a220bb82\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Even the Labour member over there, the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, is getting all excited about the next title. It could be called the \u201CTaxation (We Don\u2019t Care What You Think and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u201D, because the Government time and time again has proven that it does not care what the average Kiwi thinks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258c85362e5704849bf6e2f7f35ee286b\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: This is a very average speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282044f523937454a815c43b86fb0a18f\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: It is. It will get angrier. The Minister will start to hear me get more and more angry, and get wound up, because what this Government has done in the past few years, while it has been in power, has been very devastating. The reason why I say the bill should be called the \u201CTaxation (We Don\u2019t Care What The People Think and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u201D is that it provides high income-tax rates, high business compliance costs, and a whole bunch of compliance costs, which the average New Zealand taxpayer has to foot, and that is because of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4235a3289724f4882f1933d12cee5c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4235a3289724f4882f1933d12cee5c5\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u002206391d556a6741038d27595ad646e69b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206391d556a6741038d27595ad646e69b\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E This is more than a bill about mechanics. We in the National Party would like to take many more calls, because we want to invite the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, to explain further why he describes the bill as pure mechanics. If he had read the bill, he would know that it introduces issues that are a lot more substantial that that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EMy colleagues have talked a lot on the taxation rates, so I will leave those provisions aside and come back to the other parts of the title. The title contains the phrases \u201CAnnual Rates\u201D and \u201CVenture Capital\u201D. Submitter after submitter from the venture capital sector told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the bill will not work. It will not introduce any more venture capital investors into New Zealand, because they like a limited-liability partnership mechanism. Also, the list of countries that the provisions apply to, in terms of relief of taxation on capital distribution, is too restrictive for it to be effective. The provisions in the bill relating to venture capital are nothing more than further Labour Government feel-good legislation. Once again, what the Government introduces sounds good and looks good but does nothing. Why should Parliament continue to spend time debating legislation that is without substance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI also want to touch on another provision, which is hidden under the miscellaneous provisions, and that allows individuals to deduct expenditure relating to applications under the Resource Management Act that fail or are withdrawn. Recently we have seen Meridian Energy withdraw its large Project Aqua. Members should guess how much was written off by that State-owned enterprise. The amount was $38.7 million\u2014because the Labour Government refused to simplify and make substantial amendments to the Resource Management Act. It is not good enough simply to allow people to deduct expenditure, without tackling the core problem relating to applications under the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe miscellaneous provisions also include a provision introduced to close off the loophole relating to Australian unit trusts. While supporting the provision, National wishes to point out that investors will continue to look for overseas investments that give them a tax advantage. It is not very effective for this Government to continue to introduce legislation to close off loopholes while the tax rate remains high, because that is the main incentive that drives investment consultants or investors to look for loopholes. At the same time as the Inland Revenue Department is busy chasing investors in order to close those loopholes, these high tax rates continue to give investors the incentive to look for overseas or internal mechanisms. The most effective way for the Labour Government to address these issues is to bring down both the company and the personal tax rates, so that the Inland Revenue Department does not have to continue to chase individuals or entities, and to spend a lot of time and energy closing off loopholes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI will come back to the issue of the high tax rate, which continues to bring in high amounts of taxes to feed the Labour Government\u2019s appetite for spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022afd3900fd6044c36a923b5512f36c521\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afd3900fd6044c36a923b5512f36c521\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002292e519eff3e64ad3878ebb6e18ec8a1b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b0cdd8a297364e23983cf10837cbd911\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229b1c8e8a447e4a4ba8fc7d8058685551\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022063c9a0a8eea4328a1c53d5c83795bdc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022063c9a0a8eea4328a1c53d5c83795bdc\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I might have missed this. I know that earlier on you said that Gordon Copeland\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper amendments were vetoed. Does that relate to his amendments to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 284? I do not know that you covered that clause. You talked about Part 5, and now we are talking about clause 2. I am interested to know whether the veto covered those amendments as well. If not, we should be voting on them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u00228bed6fb823f849bc95df4eeea9df1178\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228bed6fb823f849bc95df4eeea9df1178\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: When we commenced Part 5 I read out the information that the veto also applied to his amendments to clause 2. I thank the member for raising that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022eda8a57e4e8445df8139596ac0f189ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eda8a57e4e8445df8139596ac0f189ad\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 288.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dd05d2460d17473a9f4d544dfdcedff6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000544\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022139f51aac09840639fca2e9b28f71c65\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000546\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000547\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c20a21c5e59b4ec6987375c252e71492\u0022\u003ETaxation (Venture Capital and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c20a21c5e59b4ec6987375c252e71492\u0022\u003ETaxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f57a1c8842e846dda078d1e22007445f\u0022\u003EThird Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00229fc6a1ad2a574829b8bd658163b6cebf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fc6a1ad2a574829b8bd658163b6cebf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill be now read a third time. The wide-ranging Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill reflects many of the main themes of the Government\u2019s taxation policy work programme, with measures to promote growth and innovation, to simplify taxation where possible, especially for small businesses, to reduce tax-related compliance costs, and to protect the revenue base. The bill removes a taxation obstacle to unlisted New Zealand companies gaining access to private foreign equity, including venture capital. It introduces venture capital rules that are similar to Australia\u2019s, which should help New Zealanders to compete effectively with that country for venture capital. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EAs a measure that is designed to help small businesses, the bill introduces a tax discount for self-employed people who make voluntary payments of income tax at any point during their first year of business. The point of the change is to help to relieve the financial strain that some individuals face in their first couple of years in business. The bill also introduces changes to the legislative framework that governs the resolution of disputes between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department, to improve and simplify the process for both parties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe bill allows the costs associated with patent and resource management consent applications that are withdrawn or not granted to be tax-deductible. It makes the taxation treatment of replacement plantings of fruit trees more flexible, which will encourage the use of the most commercially desirable varieties of orchard plants. In order to prevent a potential revenue loss, the bill closes a loophole involving the sale and leaseback of intangibles, such as trademarks and newspaper mastheads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EAnother revenue protection measure deals with a technical problem in the way that New Zealand dividend rules operate. It closes a loophole through which New Zealand residents can receive income from Australian unit trusts that is taxed neither in New Zealand nor in Australia. As well as dealing with technical taxation issues that arose from the severe floods in February and July this year, the bill also provides the Inland Revenue Department with more flexibility when responding to taxpayers who are severely affected by that type of event. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EFinally, the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill confirms the income tax rates that will apply for the 2004-05 income year. On behalf of the Minister, I say I am pleased that the legislation has reached its third reading. I would like to thank all those who contributed to it: the individuals and organisations who made submissions, the taxation policy officials who have worked hard on it and supported its many parts through their passage, and the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its careful consideration of the legislation. I commend the two bills to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022451babc1177d4bd9b61cbf22afe19e4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022451babc1177d4bd9b61cbf22afe19e4f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E There is much in this taxation legislation, but I am duty-bound to say there is not much that is any good. That is the honest-to-goodness truth about this legislation. The Government could not even get the simple bits right. Let us start with some of the really easy stuff. But just before I make my comments on why this is such hopeless legislation and why all New Zealanders should reject it, let us think about the Government\u2019s own partners in confidence and supply: the Progressives. What was their response to this legislation? They did not even turn up to vote in the second reading, and the vote was tied at 59 all. The Minister of Finance had to go grovelling to the media to tell the people of New Zealand that if the Progressive party pulled that stunt again and forgot to show up this time, it would be all over for Parliament\u2014not just for this year of 2004 but all over, red rover. \u201CWe will go to the polls!\u201D. That is what the Minister said. He went grovelling to the media and said that the Government\u2019s own partner, the partner that Labour was in a relationship with, had not even bothered to front up to vote for this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENow let us turn to the other partner that Labour has for matters of confidence and supply\u2014to United Future\u2014to see what that party thinks of the legislation. If a certain journalist, Vernon Small, was writing about this legislation, he would use a word I probably cannot use in the House. It is the same word he used to describe Dr Cullen\u2019s surplus. I cannot use the word, but I will tell members that it sort of rhymes with \u201Clocks\u201D and it has a \u201Cbol\u201D in front of it. That is what he would think of it. This is what United Future, the party that supports the Government on matters of confidence and supply, thinks of this legislation: the United Future members think it sucks. They think it is so bad they have had to put forward their own Supplementary Order Paper 284 in the name of Gordon Copeland\u2014and my mother would not necessarily like that, but she would not like this legislation one little bit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EUnited Future has had to put forward its own Supplementary Order Paper, and what has been the Government\u2019s response to it? A veto. It does not want to give one dollar away. Yesterday in the Budget Policy Statement the Government went out and told the people of New Zealand that there was no room for tax cuts. It told people not to worry about tax cuts, because there was not a spare dollar to return to them in tax cuts. It does not matter that household debt is going through the roof, from 100 percent, on average, of household income in 1999 to 130 percent now. That is right\u2014every New Zealander, on average, owes 130 percent of the average household income. But Government members do not care about that, because they are OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to turn for a moment to the issues around the venture capital legislation, because it has not had a lot of discussion in this debate. The Government could not even get that bit right. It somehow seems to think that it can just redraft the legislation by going out there and presenting rules that no other country follows, and that somehow, miraculously, offshore funds will come into New Zealand and be invested. Well, I have news for the rather non-commercial elements of the Labour Party: \u201CIt ain\u2019t gonna happen that way!\u201D It is easier to go to Australia or the United Kingdom, both of which understand limited partnerships, or to go to hundreds of other countries that understand limited partnerships, than to invest here. Somehow New Zealand does not understand that concept and still believes, miraculously, that people will come here. What did venture capital societies say about this legislation? Well, they said it was a step in the right direction\u2014yeah, right. It is a baby step in the right direction, but, once again, when presented with an opportunity to get some real capital into small companies that could become the backbone of the New Zealand economy in going forward, and that could really create jobs and opportunities and provide enterprise for young New Zealanders, the answer is that the Government cannot get past its ideology. It is just dishing something up to make it look as though it knows what it is doing, but really it does not know anything, at all. That has been the response in the venture capital area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThen we move to the Australian unit trust issue, which is another very interesting issue. There the financial markets were reasonably creative, and they found ways of getting New Zealand residents to invest in New Zealand Government stock through Australian unit trusts, and then to be paid dividends in the form of bonus stock issues. That meant effectively that those New Zealanders received those dividends tax-free, because there is no capital gains tax in New Zealand. We were supportive of closing that loophole down, but what did the Government do? It went into the cupboard, pulled out the sledgehammer, and managed to belt everything over the head in relation to Australian unit trusts\u2014equities and everything else. When the Government was doing the job, and as it was about to do a Texas chainsaw massacre on unit trusts, one would think it would get that right. But the Government did not get even that bit right, because it forgot about England\u2014yikes! It forgot about the product coming out of the United Kingdom, and so it just did a hit job on the things that come out of Australia. Well, that is hopeless\u2014absolutely hopeless. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWhen we go through this bill we cannot find anything that is good about it. But I want to spend the bulk of my time, if I may, in talking about the annual rates of taxation, and about the fact that the annual rates are being confirmed in this bill with no change. At a time when New Zealanders are having inflation rob them of any gains they get in their income, when they are working harder than ever, and when they are looking to get the right incentives from the Government, they get none whatsoever. Michael Cullen does not seem to think that incentives make any difference at all when one is earning money. He thinks they make a huge amount of difference in other areas, but when one is making money they do not make any difference whatsoever. So he is quite happy for New Zealanders to face an effective marginal taxation rate of 91 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EMichael Cullen is quite happy for a young family in Auckland to be working hard, earning $38,000, and raising two kids on that. He is quite happy for the couple to go out and get an education\u2014maybe to get a student loan\u2014or maybe to work harder, to work two jobs, to work longer, or to work overtime. In doing so the couple will miss seeing the kids at Saturday morning sport, and will miss what the rest of the family is doing. But if the couple puts in the hard yards and earn $70,000, it will get to keep $2,000 from the $22,000 extra that it earns\u2014and that is meant to be fair! Well, I do not know what is fair about that, and I would just love the Minister to get on his feet and tell the people of New Zealand, who are out there working day in and day out, how that is somehow fair. It is so far from being fair that it is not funny. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c110109ee76b4840b33d1af3fd7537ea\u0022\u003EHon Matt Robson\u003C/span\u003E: Come on, John, be fair to the Government. It\u2019s doing a good job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a96e62a2e2a343fe9e613a5b6df288ac\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is not doing a good job, I am afraid I have to tell Mr Robson. I am delighted, but not as delighted as Michael Cullen will be, that that member is actually in the House. I guess that that means that he can vote, so we are not to go to the elections just yet, in January. I have no doubt that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were ringing Mr Robson\u2019s office frantically, to make sure that he managed to pop in to the House from whichever Ahmed Zaoui soir\u00E9e he had been to this afternoon. Ahmed Zaoui has only just got out of jail, but I bet the member has been down at the welfare office to check out his eligibility for the emergency benefit for him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI will tell members something. Ahmed Zaoui has been out of jail for only a couple of days, and even he emailed my office to tell me that this legislation was no good! That is what Ahmed Zaoui thought of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWhat will happen to the millions and millions of dollars that are to be raised under the annual taxation rates set out in this legislation\u2014and $46 billion will come into the Government\u2019s coffers this year? That is 53 percent more than the Government raised in 1999 when it came into office. If this Government keeps on going, by 2008, 10 years after it first came into office\u2014if, goodness forsaken, it is in office for as long as that\u2014it will be earning 80 percent more than it did in 1999, yet there is no room for an adjustment to the taxation rates. We picked up the Budget Policy Statement yesterday and saw that the Government, after it has paid for its entire operating surplus and its entire capital surplus, will have $1.5 billion worth of cash in the hand, but there is no room for an operating surplus. The quality of spending has already started to deteriorate miserably, and it will get worse and worse. Things are coming out of the weird and wacky file that every Minister on the Government side of the House has, and we will be funding all sorts of unbelievable projects\u2014because when the Government spends money that is fine, but when individual taxpayers in New Zealand spend money it is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOn Sunday afternoon as I sat in my home, I wrote a press release about why the Government should give up just 1 week of the additional revenue\u2014just 1 week\u2014as a Christmas present. If the Government gave that up, it could send every New Zealander, young and old, a cheque for $75. That would mean that the average household in New Zealand would get $300, and people could have a few presents under the Christmas tree, a turkey on the table, and some trimmings. But the Government will not do that, because the turkeys in this scenario are Michael Cullen, the Government and this legislation\u2014and what a disgrace this legislation is!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac78aa981f944c009b1a71c3f13c184f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac78aa981f944c009b1a71c3f13c184f\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First opposes this legislation. The Government would have us believe that we have an economic boom going on in this country. We are now taxing individuals at up to 39c in the dollar on income of $60,000 a year and over, the company tax rate is 33c in the dollar, and we have no tax incentives or concessions for our exporters, our good old Kiwi battlers. Especially when the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar is US70c, I say that that is disgraceful. There is no economic boom, as this Government would have us believe. That is what I honestly feel. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Finance and other Ministers, including the Associate Minister of Revenue, who spoke earlier, jump up and down in this House and tell us how great everything is, when they know that is a load of hogwash. Our dollar is worth US70c, which is hurting our exporters. Young people and first home buyers cannot afford to buy houses. Our interest rates are among the highest in the OECD. They are nearly 7 percent here in New Zealand, but the official cash rate in the United States is around 2 percent. I say that is disgraceful. Some journalists just take Michael Cullen\u2019s word about the situation, and they do not tell real New Zealanders the real facts of the matter\u2014that is what I strongly feel today. We are continually sliding down the OECD rankings. Australia is way ahead of us. The average Australian earns about $120 a week more than the average Kiwi. I note that Matt Robson comes from Australia, and if he had stayed over there and had not been part of this Government, he could be earning, on average, an extra $120 a week. That, I say, has every relevance to this legislation, because if the average New Zealander earns $120 a week less than the average Australian, both the Government and individuals here in New Zealand are worse off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThe Associate Minister of Revenue said about half an hour ago that this legislation would simplify taxation. Well, I say this bill will complicate it. Earlier this year we saw the Income Tax Bill, which was 2,411 pages long, go through the House. The Government said that that bill would simplify taxation. I say that that legislation complicated taxation, and that is what the Government is doing today in this legislation\u2014it is complicating tax, not simplifying it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EA little while ago Dr Cullen congratulated himself and the Government on the great things they have been doing, as he always does. He pulled out his list of great things that the Government has been doing, and indulged in some self-congratulation on the things he has been successfully\u2014so-called\u2014dishing out to the New Zealand public. I read an editorial about 2 weeks ago in the New Zealand Herald. It was about Dr Cullen\u2019s long list and about the Government constantly telling the country what great things the Government is doing. This is what the editorial had to say: \u201CConveniently absent from his list were high export prices and the twin mountains of household and country debt \u2026\u201D. This country has a current account deficit crisis the like of which we have never seen before. It is badly in debt. We have a major, major problem, and it needs to be addressed by the Government in bills such as these\u2014supported by the Progressive Coalition, and supported by the United Future party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d16e1fc6a7a4ade943b0d556308c4c7\u0022\u003EEdwin Perry\u003C/span\u003E: Poodle power!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022010e8704f4cb4b4e8c008aab2ceeaf2e\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: That is right\u2014poodle power. That is what the United Future members say when they are trying to get enough courage to vote for the Government. They just say: \u201CPoodle power!\u201D, and they vote for the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EA few weeks ago, when we were voting on this very legislation\u2014the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as it was then\u2014in the Committee stage, the vote was tied at 59 to 59. That night United Future could have taken this Government down. United Future could have stopped the Government from putting through the Civil Union Bill. This Government would not listen to New Zealand First when we said that issue should go to a referendum, so that the people of this nation could decide on it. That is what United Future did: it let this Government ram that bill through. It could have taken this Government down when the vote was drawn at 59 to 59. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226adccf12bdbb42dbaf6114e1304fd415\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: So could New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202a8a53108a34620bd95811acd957c04\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. We do not have a carte blanche agreement with this Government; we do not have an agreement with it. I also remind that member that he has sometimes supported the Government on certain pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022484af5e82fd247c18a32a7f155639aa9\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Say that outside the House!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2df58771df747cbbcaa216b8c33d974\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: I may just try to do that. Earlier, when I spoke in the title debate on this legislation, I said the bill should have been called the \u201CTaxation (We Don\u2019t Care What You Think, Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but unfortunately I was cut off by the bell. The reason I said that is that the Government does not care about what is going on for average New Zealand households when it relates to income, income tax, personal tax, company tax, small business compliance costs, social issues\u2014or whatever else. The Government does not care about those things. That is why I say that this legislation should have been called the Taxation (We Don\u2019t Care What You Think, Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That is what it is. Yet the United Future party, which supports the Government, could have taken the Government down on that night, when the vote result was 59 to 59. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EIn closing, I want to refer the House quickly to the part of this legislation that concerns M\u0101ori authorities. When that legislation was first introduced a couple of years ago I put forward, on behalf of New Zealand First, a Supplementary Order Paper to allow that rate to be afforded to all organisations, no matter what race was involved. Sadly, that was voted down. We did not have a problem with M\u0101ori authorities getting a tax advantage\u2014not at all\u2014but we wanted all New Zealanders to get that tax advantage. That is what New Zealand First stands for. New Zealand First stands for people, for representing all New Zealanders, and for putting New Zealand first and foremost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022015c3fa337e641a19b81c693ac4d6058\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022015c3fa337e641a19b81c693ac4d6058\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E This debate has broadened into a wider debate about taxation and spending. We now have the benefit of the Government\u2019s Budget Policy Statement, and the December Economic and Fiscal Update that was published yesterday. This official Government document reinforces, many times over, the arguments that were made throughout the debate on this legislation about the levels of taxation and spending. I might say at this stage that there are a number of detailed changes in this legislation related to taxation policy, and in so far as any members of this Chamber understand them, there seems to be broad agreement on them. However, the part of the legislation that sets our tax rates and threshold has been substantively debated, particularly today, since the December Economic and Fiscal Update came out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EUnited Future proposed some amendments relating to shifting tax thresholds. It is our view that the Government should have proposed its own amendments. I will give one piece of information as to why. There is a table on page 42 of the December Economic and Fiscal Update that shows the change in tax revenue since the Budget, back in May. The change in tax revenue since the Budget, for the year ending 2005, is $1.5 billion, and for the year ending 2006 it is $1.7 billion. That is how much extra tax the Government now believes it will collect, compared with 6 months ago. That, in itself, is a good enough reason why this legislation should have, and could have, included changes in the tax thresholds. That is income the Government did not expect to get, as recently as 6 months ago. Now, sure as anything, it will get it. It is coming from households whose net incomes are not rising anything like as fast as Government tax revenue is. It is extra tax revenue coming to a Government that is having real trouble spending the money effectively that it already gets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWe are not talking about a few hundred million dollars that could disappear in the rounding, or that might blow away in some little economic wind that crops up in the next few months. We are talking about $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion. That is, of course, going to be spent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons this Government ought to have changed the taxation rates and thresholds, and it is the same reason that United Future ought to take itself seriously for a change\u2014because then other people might\u2014and vote to change these thresholds, is that a good proportion of that money will simply be wasted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI want to give the House one small example of very large numbers that no one has paid any attention to, but that show where this Government\u2019s spending track is going. In this year\u2019s Budget the Government had a forecast of how much it would be spending in next year\u2019s Budget. That is part of what is required by our legislation. In the 2004 Budget the Government forecast that in the next Budget it would spend $1.6 billion extra in 2005, and that money of course is being spent in subsequent years as well. The document that turned up yesterday has a new spending forecast for the 2005 Budget, being election year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWe all thought that $1.6 billion was a lolly scramble. Here was a Government desperate to try to win a third term, with a lot of money in the bank, going into an election year Budget with an enormous amount of cash to spend. Yesterday, the Government cranked that up by another half a billion dollars. So the forecast spend for the election year Budget has gone from $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion\u2014$500 million, just like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EAnd it gets worse. The previous forecast said $1.6 billion per year, and the new forecast starts at $2.1 billion and rises to $2.8 billion over the next 3 or 4 years. The Government will be spending an enormous amount more money, in the next Budget, than we thought just 6 months ago. So there is absolutely no doubt about the Government\u2019s fiscal strategy, which is to get in all the tax it can possibly get away with, and then find as many ways as possible to spend it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWhy is it doing that? I had a look through the fiscal outlook document, and I have to say I am greatly concerned about the quality of Treasury\u2019s production of this document. Page 46 has fiscal indicators and the use of the operating surplus. Treasury has produced an interesting graph; it just does not have any dates on it. So that is what I call a moving feast. It has these nice little waves of shortfalls and operating balance including revaluations and accounting changes, which are all calculated on the year ended 30 June. We have no idea just what year it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022079593af1c8346e8957d990a9ec88d0f\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: It looks smart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022781a077ae2054dea81ec983853347d61\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: It looks good, and no doubt Dr Cullen will produce it any year that he feels like, because it has no dates on it at all. I wonder who produced this graph. But it does ask the right question on this page. It asks: \u201CWhy does Government run an operating surplus? Why is it not \u2018available\u2019 for more spending or tax cuts?\u201D. I say to Treasury that if it thinks the Government does not regard this extra tax revenue as available for spending, then it is wrong. I have just shown how the forecast for the next Budget has gone up half a billion dollars. So it is absolutely incorrect for Treasury to imply that it is not available for spending. Its own document shows that it is. And it is absolutely incorrect for Dr Cullen to say that he is some kind of fiscal conservative; everyone else wants to spend, spend, spend; he did not put out a press release telling the country that he is increasing Government spending in the next Budget, for 2005, by half a billion dollars. That is what I call spend, spend, spend. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ETreasury asks why it is not available, and then comes up with the right answer: the answer to these questions is the Government\u2019s fiscal strategy. So the truth is we are collecting a lot more tax than the Government needs, because the Government wants to. It is the Government\u2019s fiscal strategy. It is not some natural product of the global economic system that it cannot help. It is because in this legislation today the Government chooses to collect that much tax, just as it chooses to waste large amounts of money in its spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s judgment on spending has to be questioned, because even if we think it should spend a lot, how is it that we end up with our schools selling raffle tickets to employ teachers, and schools and communities raising half a billion dollars per year over and above what the Government gives them to operate our schools\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba2798b798b247d6a73ca6f6ba6bde61\u0022\u003EBrent Catchpole\u003C/span\u003E: And that doesn\u2019t include volunteers, either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022395dc4e33a224de081b5d2c99b25e5cf\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and that does not include voluntary time\u2014at the same time, even just within education, as the Government is hosing away hundreds of millions of dollars on courses that no one wants and no one is finishing? In the end, fiscal policy is about judgment, it is not about some automatic machine that forces one to do everything and there are no choices. This Government has made choices, and that is to fatten its own waist at the expense of the working families of New Zealand, and then to try to fatten its own voting catch by spending that money in as many unwise and ill-judged ways that it can think of in the next 8 months before an election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u00221e1d0c78a93a44f5acae62739e38745d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e1d0c78a93a44f5acae62739e38745d\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Just on 5 years ago this Parliament was plunged into urgency by the new Government. The Government said that it needed more money\u2014so its first act in this Parliament was to bring in legislation, under urgency, to put up the top rate of tax to 39c. Why? Because it had done its sums and it decided that it needed an extra $400 million. Opposition parties explained that it would be counterproductive, that it would not work, that it would drive people overseas, that it would make people less entrepreneurial, and that it would cause less investment. But, not only that, we also pointed out that the Government did not need this $400 million and that it had been an election campaign, as my friend the Hon David Carter says, simply to punish the successful people of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party was able to go around and promise all sorts of good things, and when questioned as to who would pay it, it said: \u201CDon\u2019t worry, the rich people are going to pay for it.\u201D In actual fact, everyone has paid for that tax, because there has been that much less investment and that much less entrepreneurship. What did we discover? I remember this: there was a pledge card. Nothing was true about that pledge card. From the photograph down, everything was a fraud and a phoney. Helen Clark\u2019s airbrushed, teeth-straightened picture was on the card, and she stated that the tax increase would affect only 5 percent of taxpayers. What do we now discover? Eleven percent of all taxpayers are paying that top rate. As the National Party pointed out, 22 percent of all workers are now paying that top rate of tax. So that promise has proved to be, like so much of the Labour Government, a lie. We have also discovered that the Government never needed that money. I ask Mr Copeland how much the surplus is now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c864a6e164144c79e76577e7d37aee2\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: $7.5 billion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022121de4608edb4af99576027e69c60734\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It is $7.5 billion, yet the Government put up the top rate of tax to raise $400 million\u2014less than half a billion dollars. So Mr Copeland, who has loyally supported the Labour Party, has come down here with a very modest proposal, simply to hold Labour to account for its election pledge. He is simply saying: \u201CWe\u2019ve said we would keep our word and support the Labour Government in power. Why don\u2019t you keep your word and hold it to 5 percent? Here is how you do it.\u201D Not only has Mr Copeland set out how it could be done, he has drafted the Supplementary Order Paper. He has brought it down to Parliament. If one were supporting the Government, one would expect the Government to consider it and to take it on board if it was a good idea. And, if it did not think it was a good idea, it could come down to this great Parliament of ours and put it to the vote. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EBut Michael Cullen would not allow this to go to the vote, so Mr Copeland\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper was vetoed and we, as elected members of Parliament, do not even get to vote on it. So Mr Copeland, who has been honest with his support of the Labour Party, is now supporting a dishonest Government with his honesty. I think that at some point he has to ask why he is honestly supporting a dishonest Government. I think that the honest thing for Mr Copeland to do would be to put his vote where his principles are, rather than putting his vote to where there are no principles, which is Helen Clark\u2019s airbrushed picture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022425c6a48ef8b42459db208fde1ebbc45\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: The principle is to tax and spend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e8d05b788ee4339a53160a69fed210a\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Copeland is saying that the Labour Government\u2019s principle is to tax and spend. I have to say, on behalf of the ACT party, that I agree with him. I know that New Zealand First agrees with him. I know that Mr David Carter agrees with him on behalf of the National Party. Let us do a quick sum. [Interruption] I know that the United Future party does not agree with the Greens, and I know that it disagrees with the Labour Party; the only thing I am perplexed about is why it keeps voting with the Greens and with the Labour Party. That is the bit I just cannot get my head around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ae0dc6d20d84e1097436bc989d4271b\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: We can\u2019t figure it out, either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee00cf2221c146e6b1195cc9845985fb\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: The Greens cannot figure it out, and the truth of it is that neither can Mr Copeland. He cannot figure out why he is doing it, either. If he did, he would get up and explain it all to us. Let us just put aside where we are in each party and think about the poor voters, and, in particular, the poor taxpayer, and remind ourselves what Michael Cullen told this House. He told us that, yes, the gross income for the average household had gone up, but when one takes off the increase in direct tax and one then allows for inflation, we discover\u2014and this is not allowing for the indirect taxes or GST\u2014that those people are no better off. That is why people are saying: \u201CWell, hang on, this economy is going so well, how come I am not feeling it?\u201D. People are not feeling it, because it has been completely eroded by extra taxes and, as Mr Copeland has put out, what is technically called fiscal drag. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThe money has been devalued by higher inflation. Sure, people are getting a bit more because of growth, but they are finding themselves in a higher and higher tax bracket and they are going backwards under this Government. They then discover that households have stood still, in net terms\u2014in real terms\u2014but the Government is taking an extra $3,000 off each household. So the entire gain has gone to Dr Michael Cullen. When it is suggested to him by the United Future party, the ACT party, New Zealand First, the National Party, and, I should say, the Green Party, because they believe in lower income tax\u2014they say \u201CLet\u2019s get income taxes lower and put taxes on other things\u201D; I think I am representing their position fairly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240099b2d60394e179f45b22210e5f011\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f6f4ee646c14d25a8bf70a7524450f3\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: The member has to stay awake. Let us just work this out. The National Party is for lower income tax. Am I correct that New Zealand First is for lower income tax?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3ca3fb9e9bb43ce843f189d9f74047f\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279f0bdff8b964160b032caaac570664c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: They say \u201CYes\u201D. The Green Party is in favour of lower income tax, albeit with some extra taxes elsewhere. The ACT party is for lower taxes, full stop. United Future is for lower taxes, and, bugger me, Jim Anderton is for lower taxes on businesses. Let us just do the numbers. If all members in this Parliament voted according to what they believed in and what they expound publicly, we would have lower taxes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255dae8e70b254410b74a0f1907aa9ecc\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: 68 votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2f8f42ee8d8426085765a2e3a473128\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: As Rod Donald says\u2014he is much better at arithmetic than I am\u2014that is 68 votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6e9cf747f0044f6acdc48d9fc20ab4f\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: I think the M\u0101ori Party might be for lower taxes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d7c00197cac4d8f8fd85b01c3fb5272\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: If we included the M\u0101ori Party, that would be 69 votes. Mr Copeland is getting excited. The only trouble is that he will stand up and vote for this bill, which keeps taxes exactly where they are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edea638eb965427eba299de260d17aca\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: I can explain why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1621f0cc30f475db6e72fb2132fa9a8\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: He is going to explain why. I can understand the Greens, because they say they are in favour of lower income taxes only if there are other taxes to make up the difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd45ecc56bb84a16acecf134272cca7b\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: They voted for the 39c tax rate. That doesn\u2019t make sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220791fbdc837a42bf848384076d604b82\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Look, we have to admit that we have all made mistakes in this House, and the Greens made a big one. Here is the other astonishing fact in all of this. We have a Minister of Finance who thinks he has a magical touch, that he can spend all this money that the Government spends, better than the poor working people who earned it. He thinks that somehow when he spends $1 billion it has been to good effect compared with a worker spending $10.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EHe thinks that somehow this Government\u2014and I ask members to picture it, with Parekura Horomia, Steve Maharey, Jim Anderton, and Trevor Mallard sitting around the Cabinet table and spending billions\u2014can spend it to better effect than each working person just spending an extra $10 or $20 a week. We actually know how little the Government cares for working people. Helen Clark says her salary is just petty cash, because her comparison is with someone who earns $800,000, not with the average working person whom she is supposed to represent, to whom her salary is far more than petty cash. We also have a Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, who thinks that if we lower people\u2019s tax it makes no difference. I have a message for Michael Cullen: it makes a huge difference. It makes a huge difference to the weekly pay packets of working people to keep more money. I am not surprised that there are 68 votes in this House, not counting the M\u0101ori Party, for lower income tax, because members can see the logic of it. The Greens can see logic in it too. They say that if we lower income tax, people will earn more and get more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u00225be52cb1e72440459fc7b02361b47214\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225be52cb1e72440459fc7b02361b47214\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E We have just had a flood of crocodile tears from the party that would give everything away, or sell everything off, in support of the failed National Party. I am proud to support this legislation and I am proud to be part of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002226931e21e17747acbdab67aac9e74803\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226931e21e17747acbdab67aac9e74803\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E On the one hand, I thank Mark Burton for such a brutally short speech, because it enables me to give mine now then do some more preparation for the next legislation, which we are just as concerned about as we are about these bills. On the other hand, I criticise the Government for not standing up and defending its own tax policies. I think it is extraordinary that the Government is actually doing some good things when it comes to income tax, with targeted tax policies that will start to take effect next April and will give some significant benefits to families, but its members are not actually prepared to get on their feet and promote those policies. Every party in this House is talking about tax cuts, except for the Government, yet, ironically, the Government is about to deliver the most significant tax cuts for quite some time, and, what is more, the cuts are targeted towards the people who need them most\u2014poor families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOur issue with those policies is that they are not being brought in quickly enough and the cuts are not large enough. We have made that clear during the debates on those tax policies. With the December Economic and Fiscal Update that came out yesterday showing an absolutely massive Government surplus\u2014whichever way we look at that surplus, whether in paper terms or in cash terms\u2014I think it is a major embarrassment for the Labour Government that it not only is waiting until April to deliver the first tax cuts for struggling families but also is going to keep people waiting for another year for the second tranche of those tax cuts. Meanwhile, kids in this country are growing up in poverty. I challenge Dr Cullen to bring the full package forward to 2005, instead of waiting until the out-years for those policies to take effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe second point I would like to make\u2014it is not the reason why we are opposing this legislation, but I think the point needs to be made\u2014is that annual taxation rates legislation should not be forced through under urgency. The original bill was 212 pages long. Not only was it 212 pages long; it was also amended during the Committee stage, but we do not have a bar 3 version of it in front of us for this third reading debate. I think that is bad parliamentary process for legislation that is not genuinely urgent. I criticise the Government for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOn the other hand, I congratulate the Government on some of the features of this legislation. It is good to see, for example, the changes to provisional tax. It is good to see the sale and leaseback provisions on intangibles. It is good to see disputes resolution coming in. Those are all positive features. But our big sticking point with the legislation, and the reason why we are voting against it, is the changes to venture capital. We do not believe that foreign venture capitalists should get a tax advantage on their investments in New Zealand\u2014an advantage that is not extended to New Zealand venture capitalists. I know that the excuse has been that we should have a regime equivalent to Australia\u2019s, and that somehow we are short of venture capital. Well, Dr Cullen is actually the biggest venture capitalist in the country. He gambles $2 billion a year through his beloved New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and, in turn, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund puts over 60 percent of that on foreign share markets. So I say to Dr Cullen and his Government that if there is a shortage of venture capital in New Zealand\u2014and there clearly is\u2014then let us bring home the money that is going on foreign share markets and boosting other people\u2019s economies so that they can compete more effectively against New Zealand, and let us see that money invested in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI hasten to add, in case some people think the Greens support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund taking a greater stake in the New Zealand share market, that we do not support that. We simply say that that money belongs to the Government because it is the people\u2019s money, and that, on behalf of the people, the Government should be putting it into strategic infrastructure in New Zealand. We could give the Government a very long list of what that strategic infrastructure consists of, but let us start with double-tracking the North Island\u2019s main trunk line and electrifying it. Let us put a solar water heater on every home in this country. Let us build some more wind farms. I could run through a whole raft of sustainable infrastructure that New Zealand will need in very short order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EBut before I leave this part of the legislation, let us also look at the most important capital base that we need to be building, and that is our human capital. We say to the Government that it does not really have a massive surplus or a high net worth, because our young people are paying the price. Our young people are paying the price in having to borrow to fund their tertiary education. That tertiary education should be taxpayer funded, and that is the main investment the Government is ignoring. That is what the Government should be spending more of its surplus on\u2014ensuring that our young people get a universal student allowance for their studies, and ensuring that student debt is progressively written off over a period of time for those young people who remain committed to New Zealand. That is one challenge we put to the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe next challenge we put to the Government is to get on with introducing the carbon tax. I hear Dr Cullen talking about it more and more of late. That is a good thing; it means that it is not too far off. We also agree with the Government\u2019s position that the carbon tax should be revenue neutral. In that context, I say to Mr Hide that that is why the Green Party does support tax cuts\u2014we want to cut tax on personal incomes and on companies, because we want to encourage work and enterprise. But the balance point there\u2014because we are fiscally responsible\u2014is that we would bring in a suite of eco-taxes. Those eco-taxes are not only about collecting revenue but also, of course, about discouraging resource depletion, waste, and pollution. We are happy to talk with the Government any day about bringing those tax plans forward, because we believe that there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we tax both companies that operate in New Zealand and individuals, so that we encourage work and enterprise and discourage waste, pollution, and resource depletion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIn relation to cutting tax, I say for Mr Carter\u2019s benefit\u2014because I think it was a figment of his imagination that we would cut the top tax rate\u2014that we certainly would not cut the top rate; we would cut the bottom tax rate by making the first $5,000 of income tax-free. That would put $750 into the pocket of every worker and every beneficiary in this country. That is significantly different from what the so-called family-friendly party is offering. United Future claims that it is family-friendly, but the families who are most in need of a friend would get the cold shoulder from United Future, because its policy to lift tax thresholds would deliver only $75 a year to people earning less than $38,000. That is far less than they need, and far less than what the Government is already planning to deliver with its Working for Families package.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EBut people need more than that; they need some incentive to save for their retirement. That remains the big hole. I keep pestering the Government about the 6 percent differential that only we in this House get on our retirement savings. At least the Government has got rid of the penalties, but that 6 percent differential should be spread to everyone saving for his or her retirement. It might help to reverse the extraordinarily bad trend we see of fewer and fewer people saving for their retirement through registered superannuation funds. But I think it is time for the Government to go further than that and to look at shifting the \u201Ct\u2019s\u201D and the \u201Ce\u2019s\u201D. I hope the Minister is thoroughly investigating making contributions to registered superannuation funds tax-free\u2014in other words, coming off gross income\u2014and is looking at a grandparenting strategy, which would need to be phased in over a period of time, to make the payments taxable. That would give the Government the income when it most needs it, which is in 20 to 50 years\u2019 time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EMeanwhile, the Government does need to sort out the issue that was raised in the Monetary Policy Statement that next year the Reserve Bank is projecting minus 11 percent household savings. That suggests to me that we have a bubble, and that bubble, if it does not burst, at the very best will deflate. When the property bubble does start to deflate, then I think this economy is in for a very rough ride. It is time for the Government to face up to that fact and shift the tax base in the right direction by looking at our eco-tax policies, by not getting rid of capital gains tax on superannuation funds, but instead looking at implementing a capital gains tax right across the board. It will need that revenue in the years to come to address the structural problems with our economy\u2014problems that the National Party is not even prepared to acknowledge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI hope Mr Key has read page 30 of the December Economic and Fiscal Update, because it at least acknowledges that the equilibrium price of petrol will be $35. I think it will be higher than that, but it will certainly be a lot higher than the $19 that the Minister said it would be, back on 27 May when his Budget came out. Let us face some reality about petrol: petrol will only increase in price, the demand is only growing, and the reserves will only become more scarce. Until this Labour Government faces up to that fact, and until National acknowledges that the problem even exists, we are in for a rough ride.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u00222d10d2edf59c4296b8f1e47fffd0188b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d10d2edf59c4296b8f1e47fffd0188b\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E There will be no Christmas bonus for the taxpayers of New Zealand. There will be no good news for the taxpayers of this country, and it did not need to be that way. I brought to this House a perfectly reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that would have put in place some good news for New Zealand taxpayers, and would have delivered additional money into the hands of every taxpayer in the country who earns more than $9,500 a year, which is the vast majority of them, as from 1 April next year. As others have mentioned, that Supplementary Order Paper 284 was vetoed by the Government, but I would like to put on the record exactly what that Supplementary Order Paper would have done and what it intended to do. It would have shifted the tax brackets from 1 April 2005. The 15c in the dollar rate would have moved from $9,500 to $10,750; the 19.5c rate from $38,000 to $43,000; the 33c rate from $60,000 to $68,000; and the 39c rate from income over $60,000 to income over $68,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ESo why was the United Future Supplementary Order Paper to make that change vetoed by the Government? I would like to record tonight how the voting on that Supplementary Order Paper would have gone if the Government had had the courage to put it to the vote. It would have looked like this. Those in favour: National, with 27 votes, New Zealand First, with 13 votes, ACT, with 9 votes, and United Future, with 8 votes\u2014a total of 57 votes. Those parties would have voted in favour. But the other parties in the House would have voted against it: Labour, with 52 votes, Progressive, with 2 votes, and the Greens, with 9 votes\u2014a total of 63 votes. So, unfortunately, my Supplementary Order Paper was destined not to be approved by Parliament in any event. Let me make it clear; I will explain it to members so that they do not have to figure it out. The reason that my Supplementary Order Paper cannot become the law of New Zealand is the Green Party. If members look at the figures I have just given, they will see that I am right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI asked the Green Party members why they were not voting for my Supplementary Order Paper, and this was their response. They said to me: \u201CWe\u2019re not going to vote for your Supplementary Order Paper, because we are quite happy to see inflation affect the tax brackets, and to see the Government\u2019s revenue coffers bring in more money, so that we can redistribute more money and spend more money.\u201D At least, the Green Party has the courage to come out and say upfront that that is its policy and its position. Dr Michael Cullen, on the other hand, has never said that. He has never come into the House and said: \u201CMy party\u2019s policy is to collect as much tax as we can, so that we can distribute as much money as we can and spend as much money as we can.\u201D However, I want to say to Dr Michael Cullen tonight that, even though he has not said the words, at the end of the day actions speak louder than words, and New Zealanders fully understand that that is the ideology that drives this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI wanted to mention the reality that my Supplementary Order Paper would not have succeeded because the Greens were against it, because of the false claims that have been made in this Chamber tonight by ACT, New Zealand First, and National that United Future should renege on its deal with the Government, and that that, somehow, would reduce taxes. Well, it would not, and I will explain why. If United Future broke its word and walked away from its support role on taxes and the Budget, that role would be immediately assumed by the Green Party. Would that be good for New Zealand? No, it would not. The shallow National, ACT, and New Zealand First analysis overlooks that reality, and a very grim reality it would be. Imagine if the Greens in this Parliament were in the position of United Future and supporting this Government! That would be grim for business, grim for international traders, grim for road users, and grim for families. Quite frankly, it would be thoroughly bad\u2014bad for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand economy has been booming in the last several years. The Government is collecting tax like never before. In the last 3 years alone, the Government has collected $4.5 billion over and above its own annual Budget estimates. In yesterday\u2019s Budget Policy Statement there is a table that shows that over the next 4 years the Government will collect another $5.7 billion over and above the estimate in this year\u2019s Budget, which was announced in May. I say to the Green Party and to Rod Donald that that is after it has paid for the Working for Families package, which we supported. Over a 7-year period, that is a total of $10.2 billion over and above the Government\u2019s own estimates. Yet still, according to Dr Cullen, there is no room for tax cuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWell, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister, in commenting on Judy Bailey\u2019s salary increase, said that TVNZ had \u201Ca culture of extravagance\u201D, but I tell the House tonight that TVNZ is a babe in the woods compared with this Government. Here is this Government with an extra $10.2 billion coming into the coffers, and what does it intend to do with it? It intends basically to blow the lot on extravagant extra expenditure on God only knows what. We will have to wait to find out. United Future members will certainly not be going along with that, but\u2014as I have explained before\u2014it will happen because of the presence of the Greens in this Parliament and the reality that those members\u2019 votes will carry the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ESo what has Dr Michael Cullen said he will do with that extra $5.7 billion over the next 4 years? Well, I will tell members. Yesterday he said that he planned to bank some of the windfall and to direct the rest of it into new spending initiatives. That is quite unacceptable in the circumstances. He continues to tell the country that there is no room for tax cuts. Well, I am sorry but I do not buy it. Our economy might be booming, the Government might have repaid debt, and the Government might have a fabulous balance sheet at the moment, but it is a very different reality for New Zealand families. New Zealand families, in fact, are feeling the pinch. Household borrowings are at an all-time high, and New Zealanders are basically living at the moment by drawing down on their own capital base. The Finance and Expenditure Committee, which considered this legislation, has talked to Dr Alan Bollard for the past 2 years about this. Every year New Zealanders are spending more than they earn, and every year they are going deeper into debt. Currently, New Zealanders are spending 11 percent more each year than they are actually earning. We see the result in massive credit card debt and massive additional mortgages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EDr Cullen seems to be unable to see what is plain to the rest of us. He is busy hoarding our money\u2014money that belongs to taxpayers\u2014in the bank, while people are being forced to borrow to stay alive, to keep body and soul together. New Zealanders should assess these realities carefully in deciding how they vote next year. Would they like to be able to keep more of their earnings through tax cuts and begin to pay down their debts, or are they content to allow Dr Cullen to increase their taxes so that he can bank and spend?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ELet me say that United Future would adopt a completely different approach. It would include tax reductions by income splitting for couples, adjusting the tax brackets for inflation, and reducing the corporate tax rate, coupled with reining in the Government\u2019s extravagant spending habits. That would be good for families, that would be fair, and that would be just. It is thoroughly reasonable, the case is compelling, and I continue to express the hope\u2014even at this late date\u2014that the Government will act to give Kiwis a tax cut as part of next year\u2019s Budget. I very much doubt, though, whether those hopes of mine will be fulfilled. I suspect I will be hoping in vain, I am sad to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea45281122834a459f4be549675efa4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea45281122834a459f4be549675efa4b\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC):\u003C/span\u003E It gives me a huge amount of pleasure to contribute to this debate on this taxation legislation, which was introduced to the House, I think, at the end of March of this year. The contributions from the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I used to be a member, have been very interesting. They obviously put a lot of time, energy, and effort into consideration of this legislation. Considering tax bills is always a hard job because they are very detailed. The devil, as we know, is always in the detail. So I commend the members of the select committee who have contributed to the debate this afternoon for the work that they have obviously put into this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EThe legislation is a major reflection of several important, significant themes of our Government\u2019s tax policy work programme: firstly, measures to promote growth and innovation, which is a fundamental platform of the Labour-Progressive Government; simplification of the tax system, particularly for small businesses, to ensure that their compliance costs continue to be reduced; and, obviously, something that is a core responsibility of any Government, and that is protection of the revenue base. It also, as an added side benefit, will help New Zealand to compete more effectively with Australia for venture capital. It aligns our venture capital tax rules more closely with those of Australia, and it assists in promoting venture capital investment in our country by non-residents. Those are significant contributors to supporting continued economic growth, better employment figures, and lower unemployment figures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EWhile I am on that subject, it is an absolute delight to every member of this Government, and, hopefully, even to members of the Opposition, to record that we now have the lowest unemployment rate in New Zealand for nearly two decades. One of the biggest pressures facing employers in the country is an inability to attract staff, because of the low number of unemployed that we have. Obviously, our focus in the future will be on offering even more improved support to people who are currently in part-time work or are unemployed, and who would be able to make a more significant contribution to our economy if they were in the paid workforce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EThe legislation also introduces a rebate of income tax for small-business taxpayers who pay tax on their self-employed or partnership income during their first year. Self-employed people have been calling for this measure for a long time, and it is really great to see it introduced at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EThe legislation amends the framework governing the resolution of disputes between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department, to improve the process for both parties. Again, that will be a significant contributor to reducing compliance costs for taxpayers. Having that legislative process available will be of great assistance for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EFinally, it sets the income tax rates that will apply for 2004-05. It is fantastic legislation and it is my pleasure to support its further progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022a91a9095ef6d461dad2ad114733745bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a91a9095ef6d461dad2ad114733745bd\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E I guess the only excuse one can give the Hon Ruth Dyson for saying that the venture capital provision in this legislation will make New Zealand more compatible or competitive compared with Australia is that she is not even remotely connected to the revenue portfolio\u2014and New Zealanders should be grateful for that. This venture capital provision does nothing to make New Zealand competitive compared with Australia. At least, Australia is further down the track with provision of a limited partnership mechanism that would enable it to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EBut I want the United Future Party members to reflect on what message they are delivering to the public. United Future Party members are denying hard-working New Zealanders a well-earned tax cut. That is what New Zealanders would get if United Future members stuck to their principles and opposed this legislation. They say they cannot do that because they are worried that Labour will start to favour the Greens over United Future. Hard-working New Zealanders will suffer because United Future wants to be in the good books of the Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EAs for Gordon Copeland\u2019s logic, I think he has not quite worked it out. He said that his Supplementary Order Paper was not put to the vote because the Labour Government was worried about the Greens. But we have just done a numbers check, and if the Green Party supported the Government, then I am sure the Hon Dr Michael Cullen would have been very comfortable and happy to accept Gordon Copeland\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper amendments that proposed a taxation threshold adjustment to benefit hard-working New Zealanders. Today, in about 15 minutes\u2019 time, a vote will be taken, and I think United Future members will have to take responsibility for denying hard-working New Zealanders a well-deserved tax cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EAfter that, United Future went on to say\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ce6ff83b27f4e2a9f869969dc675c96\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: We support tax cuts, for crying out loud.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022771248c5eda14c6fa3b3b8e5b6035a4b\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, United Future supports tax cuts, but it would not support that move by voting against this legislation, which supports high tax rates. I am so glad to hear that United Future member yelling out to the public that his party supports tax cuts. Well, it is simple to demonstrate that. In 15 minutes\u2019 time we shall all watch the way that United Future members cast their votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022897b47374b604fadba509af1fa32748b\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: It must be tough being a doormat!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e97897dff12b4eccbf8fbb6905e0377a\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: I presume, day in and day out, United Future members are just waiting for somebody to walk all over them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dr Michael Cullen must be smiling in his dreams. He has been successful. His spin is that he is a fiscally responsible Minister, that he is very tight in his spending, and that he somehow is very responsible. It works very well on only the Labour MPs. After we had pointed out that the Labour Government is rolling in a surplus of $6.7 billion, and is raking in $34 billion from tax, Lynne Pillay said: \u201CThat\u2019s what makes a good Government.\u201D\u2014taxing people in order to be rolling in a surplus. Then the Hon David Cunliffe told us that this legislation was no big deal, that it was only a mechanism to enable more money to roll in for this tax-and-spend Labour Government. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen has obviously been very successful in conning his own caucus colleagues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe other thing I wanted to point out about the Green Party is that Rod Donald complained that the Labour Government\u2019s Working for Families package was not being promoted. I do not know where he has been. Can members guess how many millions of dollars in the Budget will be spent on promoting the Working for Families package?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa68773944ec4bf08fb2ef882c2306e0\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: $21 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8adaa1873e24fd5a9993a71c9a7cd65\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague got it in one go. I also want to share with the public that I found out that the Inland Revenue Department has $8 million in its budget for promotion. When I asked the department how it would spend that money, it said that it did not have much idea of how to spend it, that it did not know where to target the money\u2014whether on print media, radio, or whatever. It did not have a clue. The Inland Revenue Department was just handed $8 million. That is the department that tells people not to worry and that it is there to look after taxpayers. The department has $8 million that it does not know how to spend. I am sure the advertising consultancies will be queuing up in front of it to get their hands on that money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003ENational is totally opposed to this legislation, not only because it confirms the high tax rates, which are not fair, but because the Hon Dr Michael Cullen continues to refuse to tell the public when will be the right time to cut tax rates. He raised expectations by saying that he would not rule out a tax cut when the timing was right. He continues to say that the economy is doing well\u2014despite, may I remind the public, this Labour Government\u2014yet it still is not the right time. When will Labour ever find that the time is right to reduce tax rates for hard-working New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWe are also against the legislation because Labour has brought in a lot of provisions that fall into the category of feel-good provisions but have no substance. Once again, we would like to point out that the venture capital mechanism is nothing but words on paper. Submitter after submitter said to the select committee that it would not work until work had been done on allowing a limited partnership mechanism, and that the New Zealand Parliament needed to recognise that further amendments needed to be brought in to allow investors from countries other than those on the \u201Cgrey list\u201D to have the same advantage in terms of the distribution of capital profit not being taxable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe third part is to do with closing loopholes such as the Australian unit trusts. I pointed out in the Committee stage that getting Inland Revenue Department officials to go on a witch-hunt to close loopholes was a waste of time, when the problem was glaring us in the face. When the Labour Government continues to hold up high tax rates, investors and tax consultants will continue to look for mechanisms, for loopholes, to gain an advantage for themselves or their clients. If the Labour Government simply did the sensible thing and brought down both personal and company tax rates, it would find that Government departments such as the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury could spend time on more constructive areas, and could really reflect the statements that continue to be made by Labour about it encouraging growth and enterprise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022 data-id=\u002279c1dbef711f49ec9a969f3a28f55469\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279c1dbef711f49ec9a969f3a28f55469\u0022\u003EJANET MACKEY (Labour\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E Hearing National Party members talk about hard-working New Zealand families sort of sends a shiver down one\u2019s spine. It is a little bit like hearing the Grinch talk about Christmas, especially as those members are from a party whose leader, within hours of being elected leader of the National Party, announced on television that his personal commitment was to reduce the tax burden on high-income New Zealanders. This is another excellent piece of legislation from this Government. It is targeted at reducing compliance costs for business in New Zealand, and at making business easier for those people, who are keeping our economy ticking over. I am very happy to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc3e4713c41b49538aa87b4ab6230ae4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc3e4713c41b49538aa87b4ab6230ae4\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E One of the rich ironies of the debate this afternoon is that the Opposition right-wing parties of National and ACT have been going on for years and years about how they are the party that is friendly towards business. This bill is very business friendly and very helpful towards business in a wide range of ways. I am very pleased to support this bill. This Government is very supportive of large, small, and medium-sized businesses. This is a good bill that will help them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222559e12a081e4dc6a1e32e3f58e8a0ae\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221d656f50ba2f46a88091d97ec496494a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022318932d128ef451c90d201ce5ef994c5\u0022\u003EPublic Finance (State Sector Management) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222bd17c13c71a44c7b2e3321d27fdeb4f\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u0022d40b4d11ccb3450ea0d2746a716f132c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d40b4d11ccb3450ea0d2746a716f132c\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill be now read a second time. This bill is the culmination of significant work intended to strengthen and improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of the public service and wider State sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fdbe759f9a64c5589e0557e6584162e\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON\u003C/span\u003E: As I noted ever so briefly before the dinner break, the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill is the culmination of significant work intended to strengthen and improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of the public service and the wider State sector. The bill consists of eight parts, covering three important areas of change: first, changes to the Public Finance Act, including integration of the Fiscal Responsibility Act; second, amendments to the State Sector Act; third, the creation of a new Crown Entities Act. At the end of the Committee stage the bill will be divided into its constitute parts, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 316. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EThe Finance and Expenditure Committee has considered and addressed a range of issues raised in submissions\u2014in particular, the submission received from the Clerk of the House raised issues from a parliamentary perspective. I thank the committee and officials for working effectively through these to ensure that the primacy of Parliament has been upheld, and to clarify the intent and application of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EThe key amendments the committee has recommended to the Public Finance Act, in Part 1 of the bill, relate to the estimates and multiclass output appropriations. The committee has also recommended that the appropriations provisions precede the fiscal responsibility provisions in order to recognise the central importance of the appropriation process. The committee considered that the estimates provide important information, and also wish to allow for future developments. The committee has therefore recommended that clause 8 be amended to provide for the retention of the estimates and to require the Minister of Finance to consult the House on significant changes to the format or content of Budget documents, including the estimates. The Government agrees with these changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EThe bill provides for output classes to be grouped within a single appropriation. Submitters expressed concern that this may reduce the level of information provided to Parliament, thus reducing accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. That is certainly not the intent. Rather it is intended that output classes remain the basis for parliamentary reporting and accountability. The committee has therefore recommended amendments to clause 8: first, to clarify that individual output class information is still required; and, secondly, to safeguard use of multiclass output appropriations by requiring approval from the Minister of Finance. These changes will ensure that accountability to Parliament is maintained, while allowing greater flexibility for Ministers and departments to focus on delivering the best results for New Zealanders.That is always at the heart of this Government\u2019s legislative intent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EPart 2 amends the State Sector Act extending the mandate for the State Services Commissioner to the wider State sector, and establishing the shared responsibility of the commissioner and chief executives for the development of senior leadership and management capability. The committee has recommended only minor changes to this important part of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EThe proposed new Crown Entities Act, in Parts 3 to 7 of the bill, sets out a consistent governance and accountability framework for all Crown entities, while recognising that different types of entities have different relationships with the Crown. I think the differentiation and the recognition of it are very important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EThe most significant changes recommended by the committee relate to the intent of, and procedural matters around, the proposed whole-of-Government direction of power. To address concerns\u2014in particular, those raised by the Regulations Review Committee\u2014the select committee has recommended that clause 152 be replaced with new provisions that directly authorise the Minister of State Services and the Minister of Finance to issue jointly whole-of-Government directions, rather than by Order in Council. The Government again agrees with these recommendations, which will contribute to alignment across Crown entities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EIn addition, the committee has made recommendations that clarify the application of the bill to two categories of Crown entities\u2014namely, school boards of trustees and tertiary education institutions. A number of submissions expressed concern that the bill would result in onerous burdens on school boards of trustees. To address this concern the committee has recommended a positive list approach\u2014that is, the inclusion of a new schedule detailing the provisions that apply to school boards of trustees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003ESubmissions from tertiary education institutions argued that they should cease to be Crown entities. The committee and the Government consider that the separate category of \u201CCrown entity\u201D is appropriate and recognises their distinctive nature. The committee has recommended that a positive list approach also be applied to tertiary education institutions. I welcome the committee\u2019s practical suggestion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003ETwo Supplementary Order Papers were released on 7 December. Supplementary Order Paper 316 divides the bill into its constituent parts. Supplementary Order Paper 315 amends the bill as reported back, and covers changes to commencement and transitional clauses, simplifies the application to tertiary education institutions, and contains technical amendments and consequential amendments to other legislation. This includes a correction to the commencement provisions of the Gas Amendment Act 2004. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003EFinally, I wish to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for working constructively and improving the bill. I am pleased, as I know the Minister of Finance is, to note that the committee unanimously recommended all the amendments. The Government supports these amendments. This legislation represents the most significant enhancement of public sector management for over a decade, and will help set a new benchmark for Government transparency and accountability in New Zealand, and, indeed, internationally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022fba9323e4c274e01ae86d12609340c50\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fba9323e4c274e01ae86d12609340c50\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E This bill does have some positive changes for public sector management, but the heart of the debate over it is going to be whether this Government can be trusted with this particular tool kit. This is a Government that has overturned most of the conventions and understandings by which the public service has operated. The public service operates at its best when it has clear direction from a Minister and a Government, and is allowed to get on with the job. Part of that job is always going to be dealing with the political pressures that arise around Government decisions, because Government decisions will not always be greeted favourably. That means that public and political pressure will come on those decisions and on the public servants who execute them. What happens then is absolutely vital and is the real test of whether the Government is managing the public sector properly. If the Government changes its position just as a matter of whim, because of political pressure, and if it blames the civil servants for the embarrassment that is caused by their carrying out the Government\u2019s own decisions, then the public service has less capacity to function with independence and integrity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI will just point out a few examples, which raise questions about the Government\u2019s intent in respect of the civil service, and therefore the effectiveness of this legislation. One would be the fate of the Community Employment Group. They made the mistake of implementing Government policy. That is a bad mistake when Steve Maharey is the Minister in charge of one\u2019s department. He had this idea of the Social Entrepreneur Fund, which turned into a slush fund for all sorts of mad schemes. These were gradually revealed to the public. They were an embarrassment, as they should have been, because it was a stupid policy, and under a Minister who cannot implement anything. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo what did he do? He then turned round and abolished the Community Employment Group altogether. He did not just shut down the Social Entrepreneur Fund; he decided to punish, by sacking, those people who he believed had embarrassed the Government. As it happens the Community Employment Group is one of the more useful social bureaucracies around the place. It has made valuable and long-lasting contributions in my electorate, but it is gone. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWhat impression does that leave with the civil service? Civil servants believe that the Government is putting in place a bad policy, but carry it out because they are professional civil servants, then find that the Government comes along and punishes them when the inevitable political embarrassment arises. That is one reason why this Government cannot be trusted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI will give the House another example\u2014the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and its saga over Cool IT. That raises a number of questions about public sector administration. The Minister has in recent weeks decided to withhold money from the polytechnic. Is that because he believes that it did something with public money that it should not have? No, it is the result of 12 months of public embarrassment for the Government, in the media.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EEveryone who is involved in the sector knows that. The Minister has moved, simply because the political pressure has become sufficient that he feels he has to, or he will lose all credibility. Again, those actions cut across all the conventions and understandings of the way this legislation imagines the public sector would work\u2014where there are clear delineations of responsibilities, where there is transparent accountability for the money, where the Minister has powers but does not use them except in extreme circumstances, and where public servants can operate in an environment of certainty and predictability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThat is why I worry about things like the whole-of-Government direction that is in the bill. It is couched in the usual loose terminology of good intentions, in the same way that local body legislation prescribes that local government is now responsible for the environmental, social, economic, and sustainable good of their communities. It is meaningless garbage in legislation. It could mean anything. It could mean nothing. That is the kind of thinking the Government will bring to bear through mechanisms like the whole-of-Government direction. I hope that, in the Committee stage, some attention will be paid to the kind of approach that is implicit in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI am particularly concerned about the effect of the bill on the tertiary education sector. I draw the House\u2019s attention to that because that is probably the group that is most opposed to the bill and, in my view, for good reason. The second-most opposed, initially, was the Clerk of the House. I must compliment him on the best example of a senior public service leader standing against the tide. The Government\u2019s initial legislation was a disgrace. It showed its contempt for Parliament and for the accountability that must go on in this place. The Clerk, as at times the Speaker should, stood up for Parliament and put a case. A committee of parliamentarians\u2014rather than Ministers, thank God\u2014heard that submission and changed the bill substantially. I record the Opposition\u2019s gratitude for the role that the Clerk and his office played in holding back the steamroller of the executive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI return to the tertiary sector, because, as I said, people in that sector were among the strongest opponents of this legislation. The relationship between government and universities, in particular, but also polytechs, is a somewhat delicate one. Their ownership is unclear. The accountabilities are relatively clear, but the role those institutions have to make autonomous decisions of their own is absolutely vital. It is absolutely vital that they do not feel stood over by the Government. It is vital that they can act, as Parliament has charged them to do, as the critics and conscience of society. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ENow, I have to say I approached the argument of the tertiary institutions with some scepticism, because in the last 5 or 6 years they have cravenly supported, in just about every respect, the Government\u2019s tertiary policy\u2014up until 6 months ago. That tertiary policy has put together a whole mechanism of control. The Tertiary Education Commission, a $50 million extension of the Minister\u2019s office, is a hopelessly complicated bureaucracy that, for all the wires, pulleys, and computers, actually does almost nothing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo there should be no surprise that the Government has taken from the tertiary sector the message that it can do pretty much what it likes. All those fine academics who used to denounce past Governments with such vigour have lain supine while the Government rolled over them. Finally they decided to stand up for themselves and oppose the provisions in the bill, and I fully support them on that. It should be absolutely clear that tertiary institutions\u2014universities, in particular\u2014are independent of government, and, particularly, independent of this Government, which believes that it knows better and can do jobs better than the people doing them. It thinks it can run universities better. That is why it is bringing them in under the provisions of this bill. It can run the public service better than the civil servants can, and that is why some new tools have been included in the bill for the Government to use. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThis debate is essentially about trust. On its own, in the hands of a Government that respects the civil service, the bill will be useful, constructive, and forward-looking, but in the hands of a Government whose dead political reach goes into every corner of life in New Zealand and whose politicisation of the public service, including the police, is a disgrace, this bill could end up being quite dangerous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022 data-id=\u0022abf99bb738bc40e6905e3dae9431ec41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abf99bb738bc40e6905e3dae9431ec41\u0022\u003EGEORGINA BEYER (Labour\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I take a short call in the debate on the second reading on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. The bill is designed to strengthen the public service, make it more transparent and flexible, allow a more integrated response to complex social problems involving a number of State agencies, and invigorate the culture of the State sector. It stems from the 2001 Review of the Centre and represents the first major change to State sector governance in a decade. There are a number of main points, and I will name just a few of them now for the benefit of members. It integrates the Fiscal Responsibility Act into the Public Finance Act, and it broadens appropriations in order to allow Ministers more flexibility, while retaining levels of reporting and accountability to Parliament. It also enhances departmental reporting, to ensure that a broader range of information about intended and actual performance is disclosed. It also makes the Auditor-General\u2019s controller function become more effective and requires Ministers to report to Parliament on serious breaches. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EI hope the House will debate this bill fully as it goes through its stages, and I reiterate my support for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022716da677f9ba4f6eb9b5dcdd2d568424\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022716da677f9ba4f6eb9b5dcdd2d568424\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to the second reading of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, I note that it covers the main legislation that governs public finance and the management of the State sector. I also note that the bill is the culmination of a review of public management. The Review of the Centre suggested there should be initiatives to support better integration, greater flexibility, and an increased focus on results, without losing the system\u2019s current strengths of transparency, accountability, and financial management. The Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, stated that the bill was \u201Cdesigned to strengthen the public service, make it more transparent and flexible, allow a more integrated response to complex\u2014\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThe question was raised by Simon Power that a Minister was not present in the Chamber. The Assistant Speaker declared that a Minister was present.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f83f95a334441858975c3ef3f921a7f\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the Minister of Finance said that the bill will \u201C\u2026 allow a more integrated response to complex social problems involving a number of state agencies and invigorate the culture of the state sector.\u201D, as the previous speaker said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EBut after looking at the bill, and after being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and hearing the concerns of the submitters as they came to the table, one by one, I say that the bill, sadly, will not achieve those objectives. The New Zealand First members of the select committee, myself and the Rt Hon Winston Peters, wanted to see whether the bill did what Michael Cullen said it would do. We also wanted to hear the submissions, to find out whether submitters believed the bill achieved its goals. After doing that I still feel strongly that it does not, in many ways. In some ways it does, and in other ways it does not.This bill amends the Public Finance Act and the State Sector Act, and creates a new Crown Entities Act. The Government says that it will improve transparency and accountability. Sadly, I really feel, once again, that that will not happen under this legislation in its current shape and form. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EI believe that this bill is appropriately named\u2014not because it is good legislation, but because it represents more State control by the Government. This Government is, sadly, all about State control. I believe that it wants to have a stronger grip on anything and everything in our society. It does not want to allow the elderly RSA members, who fought for our rights as a nation, to have a cigarette at the local \u201CRazza\u201D\u2014it does not want them to do that. The Government wants to have more State control over our taxes and our education system, as we can see in this very bill. I will get to that point later on. The Government wants to have more control over our values and what we believe in. I believe we are going down a very scary road. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003ERepresentatives from our educational institutions came before the select committee, and they were very, very concerned about this legislation. They, along with the Clerk of the House and others, were concerned about it. The Clerk had a lot of concerns that the Government members on the committee listened to. I, like Bill English, admire the Clerk for standing up against this legislation and honestly saying that it will not work in its current form\u2014that it will not float, as it were. In the same way, I admire the tertiary education sector. The institutions joined forces, came to the select committee, and told us of their fears and concerns about the control that this bill would give to the Government. Some people may say that the intent of the Government is very admirable\u2014or it should be admirable, whatever the Government is. But we cannot be 100 percent sure of that, in view of some of the things that we have seen go through this House in the past few months. I strongly feel that a lot of the issues in this legislation need to be clarified more comprehensively. Speaking of the submitters, it was amazing to see each submitter come into the select committee one by one, and to find that a lot of them had similar concerns. They had a wide range of concerns, but in many ways those concerns all centred around the issue of still wanting to be independent\u2014or the fear that they would lose their independence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EUltimately, at the end of the day, New Zealand First members had to look\u2014as did all members of the select committee\u2014at this legislation as a whole, and ask whether it would be best for New Zealand in the long run. Sadly, we had to say that no, it would not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc85c22f7a584edfad485668298ef157\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Was it a close vote?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dea3c42b58f144c6a2cae2945da88043\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: It was 13 to nil. New Zealand First opposes this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed482b99b8814aac8b82702de4b403fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed482b99b8814aac8b82702de4b403fb\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. It is a long time since February 2004, when this bill received its first reading. Also, it is now a few months since the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I am deputy chair, reported the bill back to the House. At 500 pages, this is a pretty massive bill, and it introduces major changes to the way that the Crown accounts record the public finances of New Zealand. Before I proceed into some of the nitty-gritty provisions of the bill, I would like to mention the use of the word \u201CCrown\u201D in a New Zealand context. When I was growing up, those accounts were known as the \u201Cpublic accounts\u201D or the \u201CGovernment accounts\u201D. I think the adoption of the Crown terminology is a step backwards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ETo most Kiwis\u2014and that includes M\u0101ori Kiwis\u2014the Crown terminology conjures up images of the Queen or the Governor-General. But, in truth, the accounts referred to in this bill belong not to the Queen or the Government, but rather to the people of New Zealand. They represent and record, for example, assets purchased with funds taken in the form of taxes from the people of New Zealand, borrowings and other liabilities that are incurred for and on behalf of the people of New Zealand, and expenditure that is funded from taxes, duties, and levies compulsorily imposed on the people of New Zealand. The Government should always remember that no money it spends has not first been collected from the people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EMaybe in the long run we should look at ditching the references to Crown accounts, Crown agencies, and Crown entities, etc. I think it would be good if terminology was eventually adopted that more strongly corresponded to the reality that those entities and agencies, and their accounts, belong to the people, and are there to serve them. Then we may again have\u2014who knows\u2014civil servants, and put more emphasis on the centrality and importance of civil society in New Zealand. However, that debate is for another day. Perhaps it could be taken up by the constitutional inquiry that will be launched by Parliament during this week of urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EAs a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I acknowledge the centrality of the input we received from the Clerk of the House, Dave McGee QC, and the way that he led us through the various constitutional arrangements that lie at the heart of the public finance accounts and, therefore, of this bill. Without Dave McGee, I am not sure quite where this bill would have ended up. He brought us back to emphasising that in matters relating to public finance, the centrality of Parliament must remain all-important. It is in Parliament that the people of New Zealand place their trust. It is a trust that could be likened, I guess, to trusteeship, and it is also a privilege to make huge decisions, involving literally billions of dollars, for and on behalf of the people of this country\u2014for their welfare. Parliamentarians are the only elected people in New Zealand. We must never surrender the sovereignty that belongs to the elected assembly of New Zealand to unelected and sometimes faceless bureaucrats. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIn the first draft of this bill there was definitely a slant in that direction. We needed the advice of the Clerk of the House in order to put the right balance back. I guess that just illustrates how relatively easy it would be for us to kid ourselves\u2014particularly, probably, the executive members of any Government\u2014that somehow we are the people who really constitute the sovereignty of this country, together with our army of civil servants and other paid employees. But we need to continue to clearly express the fact that the people of New Zealand are sovereign in this country, and that we in Parliament are, in a very real sense, here to serve them and their interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EAnother very interesting thing happened in the course of our extensive consideration of this enormous bill. We had, for example, some submissions that put before us a conspiracy theory. That is quite unusual\u2014I think it is the first time since I have been in Parliament that people have come to the select committee, and asked us not to pass a bill because it was really a conspiracy to usher in a one-world Government. From the people who made the submissions to us, we almost got a sense that Armageddon was right behind us\u2014that we would have a one-world Government tomorrow and the end of the world the next day, with the Antichrist somewhere in the distance. They were actually quite well-qualified people, but the bottom line is that their criticism was really alarmist and ill-informed. They could be excused, I guess, for drawing some of those rather fanciful theories together by the sheer complexity of this bill. I have to admit that when one significant piece of legislation is being amended by another, then in relation to technical areas such as public finance and State sector management it really takes something of a wet towel to get one\u2019s mind around some of the amendments and the way they fit into the existing legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EHowever, the central goal of this bill\u2014and I think we have got pretty near to it\u2014is basically to ensure that the public accounts of New Zealand\u2014the various statements made to introduce fiscal policy through the Budget Policy Statement and so forth, and through the Fiscal Responsibility Act\u2014are kept according to standards that represent best international practice. That, I think, has been the driving force behind the bill, and the committee has got us as close to that as possible\u2014certainly within the level of the competence not only of ourselves but also of the many people who worked tirelessly to give us advice in those areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI also think that the changes to State sector management in the bill will be positive. I welcome the drive to put in place standardised procedures, including ethical guidelines, that will apply across the board to all State agencies, entities, and whatever other names we choose to give such bodies. We have all those categories of autonomous ones, semi-autonomous ones, independent ones, and so forth. But whatever those agencies are called, I think we need to ensure, in the interests of the people of New Zealand, that they all carry out their functions in accordance with high ethical standards and with the best interests of the people at heart. Really, those are the important things about the bill. We have cleared up a number of grey areas, and a number of situations where the existing legislation was unclear about lines of accountability and responsibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIn summary, I signal that United Future is reasonably happy with the outcome on this bill and with the work of the select committee. We will therefore support the bill through the Committee stage and its third reading, thereby assisting it to become the law of the country. It will then be up to the same civil servants that I mentioned earlier to put it into practice, and that will be a great challenge to people in Treasury and in the State Services Commission, in particular. I express my own satisfaction with the high quality of the people we have in those organisations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u002283d521ed57fa40d6aedf4d407fd0fd4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283d521ed57fa40d6aedf4d407fd0fd4e\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party, which is voting against this bill. We support the extensive changes that occurred in the select committee, under the guidance and hard work exhibited by the Clerk of the House, but we are still voting against this bill, for two main principles: the first concerns the spending of taxpayers\u2019 money, and the second is the enormous threat this bill poses to the autonomy and academic freedom of universities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EIn fact, with regard to the second principle, I find it astonishing that a Government most of the senior Cabinet members of which have been privileged to go through a university education and enjoy the academic freedom that that brings\u2014one of the few areas in life where one can have that kind of protection\u2014is now passing legislation that has outraged the Vice-Chancellors Committee. It has caused the vice-chancellors a huge amount of grief and has forced them to go public with their concerns, after repeatedly lobbying and making submissions on what the legislation will do to the autonomy of universities in bringing them under the control of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EBut first of all I would like to talk about the changes that this bill is bringing about to\u2014the watering down of\u2014the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Every single day in New Zealand every taxpayer should go down on his or her knees and thank the Hon Ruth Richardson for bringing in that Act. It places a safeguard\u2014it is a gatekeeper\u2014on the amount of taxpayers\u2019 money that Governments can spend, and where. Politicians love spending taxpayers\u2019 money. They write out cheques for things they would never write out cheques for if it were their own money. What politician, what MP, would write out a cheque for $500,000 to send a port-a-loo that makes a noise like a donkey to an international art exhibition? If there are any politicians or MPs who would do that, I challenge them to get out their chequebooks and do that right now with their own money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat politician would write out a cheque for thousands of dollars for a hip-hop tour, or for bounty hunters to go around suburbs, mostly in Auckland, in vans, pick up little children, and collect a bounty for enrolling them in an early childhood centre? They are not checking the quality of the education that the children will get in that early childhood centre, or checking to see whether they will stay in that centre, then go on to school and learn to read\u2014all those things that taxpayers\u2019 money should be spent on in terms of adding value to, or improving the lives of, people. No, the money is just for ticking a box. No politician would write out a cheque for his or her own money to do that. If politicians wrote out a cheque for children to go to early childhood centres, they would make damn sure that the children were getting a good education, and that they would come out each day having learnt a little bit more than they knew when they went in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat politician would write out a cheque for $400,000 to double the salary of a newsreader who was not actually poached by a rival television company? Because negotiations had gone on for so long and were so inept, the newsreader could have walked, so the salary was doubled. No politician would do that, but when it is taxpayers\u2019 money it is another story. Other people\u2019s money is a drug\u2014it is an opiate\u2014and politicians get high on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThat is why, instead of watering down the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we should be building on that Act. We should be passing legislation that requires value-for-money tests. In fact, we should go so far as to have a taxpayers\u2019 bill of rights that safeguards taxpayers\u2019 money by limiting Government spending to the rates of inflation and population growth. To spend more than that, a referendum would need to be held; if 75 percent or more of the people give their support, politicians could spend more money than that. Instead, this legislation is, as it says, almost a watering down of the Fiscal Responsibility Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ETrevor Mallard has said that this legislation gives greater financial transparency in ensuring the proper spending of taxpayers\u2019 money. It does nothing of the sort. It still leaves the way open for Governments to succumb to the temptation to spend money to buy votes. With a 3-year term, a Government can save it all up in the first and second years, and spend it in the third year, to ensure that it will get in again at the following election\u2014or promise more. That is what we will see more of, and that is why we cannot support this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI would like to move on to the issue of universities and academic freedom. Crown entities will include universities as organisations in which the Government has a controlling interest. The ownership of universities is an interesting issue. They are on public land but students have to pay to go there. They also get quite a lot of private funding. More and more universities look to the private sector for sponsorship and funding. That private sponsorship and funding saves the taxpayer millions of dollars. If members have been to Auckland University and seen the Icehouse, which grows entrepreneurs and young business people, they will know that just about all of that has come through private donations and private funding, which the vice-chancellor worked very hard at getting. How will private institutions feel about sponsoring or putting money into universities when they see what happens to universities under this legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere will be a Minister specially designated to control universities. The Minister will have the ability to sack members of the council if the university is not carrying out Government policy. I seriously question how the Government can say this bill is not a threat to academic freedom. If it is not a threat to academic freedom, how come the Vice-Chancellors Committee, hardly the most libertarian organisation in New Zealand, has taken it upon itself to write a public letter seeking support from senior businessmen and senior academics\u2014and many graduates and alumni, as I said, are in this House\u2014to oppose this bill? But the lobbying has fallen on deaf ears.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI will continue on this issue in the Committee stage. I will be urging those in the Government who are concerned about academic freedom to think again before they include universities in this bill, and I will do so again during the third reading. As I said, this bill in its present form is not a bill we can support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u0022b355bf7522fd4c46876053c2b3f63d67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b355bf7522fd4c46876053c2b3f63d67\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party will be supporting this bill in the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading. I say that with some relief because if substantial changes had not been made to this bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we would definitely have been opposing it in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe process that this bill is now undergoing mirrors, I believe, the bad process that has occurred from the outset. Here we are on Wednesday night\u2014Wednesday night as far as the rest of the world is concerned but Tuesday night as far as the parliamentary timetable is concerned\u2014dealing with a bill that is 500 pages long, under urgency, in a fashion that I think is totally inappropriate. We are having the second reading debate, then we will have the Committee stage\u2014and this bill has something like 18 questions to be debated. The third reading debate will immediately follow the Committee stage. So there will be no opportunity for appropriate consideration of this bill, no opportunity to reflect on its detail during the Committee stage, and no gap between the Committee stage and the third reading in which to consider introducing last-minute changes as a result of the Committee stage debate. I think that is very poor lawmaking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThat, I am afraid, epitomises this bill. When it came to the select committee in the first place, it was a shambles. It was a dog\u2019s breakfast. I have to say that the original bill exposed both the ignorance and the arrogance of the executive. The bill as introduced significantly undermined the status and role of Parliament. I am not asking members to believe me when I make that statement, although members ought to because we are now supporting the bill; I would just recommend that members read the submission of the Clerk of the House, David McGee. His submission was scathing. I have never seen a submission from the Clerk quite like that one. Even his criticism of international treaties was moderate compared with the way he completely demolished the content and structure of this bill. To give members an indication of the depth of his concern, I point out that his submission was 24 pages long. It contained 6 pages of recommended changes, including some most significant ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe bill as introduced removed the terms \u201Cestimates\u201D and \u201Csupplementary estimates\u201D from our legislation. It allowed for the aggregation of votes. It reduced parliamentary consultation. It reduced ministerial accountability to the House. It removed obligations to present and publish departmental annual reports. It restricted the supply of information to Parliament, and it allowed for capital expenditure to occur without appropriation. I will just dwell on that for one moment; Mr McGee\u2019s comment was \u201CParliament should regard with inherent suspicion any proposal to appropriate permanently.\u201D, and we totally agree with that. Last, but certainly not least, he raised concerns about excessive delegation of power, and the one that we in the Green Party are particularly concerned about is the one that, to quote David McGee, amounted \u201Cvirtually to an open-ended power to require Crown entities to comply with international treaties to which New Zealand is a party.\u201D I will not go though everything in David McGee\u2019s submission, because it was not the only one that was extremely critical of this bill. Even the usually mild-mannered and reserved Controller and Auditor-General\u2019s submission raised a number of concerns, as did many submissions from members of the public and key organisations such as the Vice-Chancellors Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI am happy to say that the bill has been extensively rewritten, hence its length. It has been rewritten because of those concerns, but I have to ask the Government why it ever brought a bill to this Parliament in the first place without thoroughly consulting key interested stakeholders, such as the Clerk of the House, the Vice-Chancellors Committee, the Public Service Association, and all the other organisations that will be intimately affected by this bill, and such as the Controller and Auditor-General, who is, in conventional terms, Parliament\u2019s man and is there to look after our interests. It is simply bad lawmaking for a select committee to have to spend months wading through report after report to fix up a mess that should not have been created in the first place. But thank goodness that people like McGee did make strong submissions, because in the end he did win the day, and what we have before us is a considerable improvement on what we started with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt is still far from perfect. A number of people, such as Sue Newberry, believe that we should unwind many of the changes that originally came in in 1989, such as the move from cash to accrual accounting. I know that the vice-chancellors want to remove from this bill any embrace of universities under the Crown entity category, and to have them put completely under the Education Act. I would say to both groups that I understand their concerns, but I think in both cases the bill as reported back addresses many of them. One has only to look at Supplementary Order Paper 315 on the Table to see that the Government has, to a large extent, capitulated to the requests of the universities by removing a number of the requirements under schedule 6B that apply to universities, to keep them onside. Mr Mallard was right when he said in a recent interview that the status quo remains, because the Supplementary Order Paper, for example, removes the application to tertiary educational institutes of sections 174, 175, 199, 210, and 212 of the Act. That goes some way to addressing the vice-chancellors\u2019 concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EBut there are other improvements that could be made to this bill. I foreshadow a set of amendments, which I will be putting on the Table, that do a number of useful things from our point of view. I will listen with interest to John Key\u2019s comments on whether he supports, particularly, the addition of contingent liabilities to the requirements under section 26J, in clause 8, so that the Government\u2019s long-term objectives with regard to contingent liabilities are set out in a Fiscal Strategy Report. We also want to see an extension of the requirements under section 26P, in clause 8, to cover overseas trade in goods and services, reserves of natural resources, social well-being, and environmental quality, because we want the Government accounts to move to a triple bottom line. We also want to see more transparency with regard to securities, derivative transactions, investment, and guarantees. We want to bring that into section 27, in clause 10. I am sure that many members of the House, particularly Matt Robson, will be keen to see that we want the Security Intelligence Service to have to present its accounts to the House. At the moment it is let off. For all those Labour members who are concerned about workers\u2019 rights, we want to bring in employee representation for Crown entities, and a pay and employment equity programme. Second to last, but not least, we want building societies to be treated on the same basis as banks, as far as their being a place where Crown entities can invest their money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EUltimately, we are keen to accommodate what the Government Superannuation Fund Authority wants, which is to be treated equally with the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, but our solution is to turn the New Zealand Superannuation Fund from an autonomous Crown entity into an independent Crown entity. That should not keep either of those bodies happy, and that is exactly what we are keen to do, because we want them to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0e588dba3f94e26b670e3cd8e118dd2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I think National will vote against that, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269d7874ab14f4f38b3e87d94393d7c93\u0022\u003EROD DONALD\u003C/span\u003E: I am sure National would. It is the old two-party club situation. Both of them have the same attitude when it comes to many aspects of the economy, which is why this House needs the Green Party here to present an alternative perspective to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022058effe8165841f78ca7293ee47c45eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022058effe8165841f78ca7293ee47c45eb\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E When the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill was introduced to the House in February this year we were told that some of the drivers behind the bill were concerns about Crown entity behaviour and problems with leadership development within the State sector. The bill aims to improve flexibility and retain accountability for public moneys, etc. The National Party played the responsible Opposition party role, and in the interests of demonstrating goodwill towards the reasons that we were given for the bill, we supported the bill to the select committee and raised a lot of reservations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI am afraid that after the passage of this bill through the select committee we are not convinced, even following the major rewrite of Part 1, that it has answered our major concerns with the philosophy of these changes, and I will proceed to outline them. National will not be supporting the bill in its second reading, unless there are dramatic changes in the Committee stage. I also call on United Future and the Green Party and say that those two parties owe it to the public not to casually give away their consent to support this bill through the Committee stage and third reading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EIt was quite disturbing to hear the Green Party co-leader Rod Donald say that this bill is far from perfect and they would accept it. I did not know that the Green Party campaigned to come to the Parliament so it could support anything that is less than ideal or perfect. I think it is a demonstration of how, unfortunately, in this Parliament the United Future party and the Green Party seem to fall over each other to gain favour from the Labour Government. In doing that, they have given away a chance to make sure this important legislation, the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, gets the attention it deserves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EA bombshell was dropped at the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the Clerk of the House brought in a 26-page submission. At this stage I have a question to ask, and I look forward to the Minister of Finance during the Committee stage answering some of the queries that some of us have. Was it intentional for the executive to bring in Part 1, which allows the executive to override the supremacy of the Parliament in making sure that members of Parliament would not be able to request information from various Government departments, unless under some strict conditions, and also limit the ability to examine the accounts? I want to know whether there was a deliberate attempt by the executive to instruct the writers of the legislation to achieve that effect, and indeed they have been caught out by the Clerk of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EEqually worrying is whether the executive actually did not intend to do that. But the legislation has ended up in such a shape that a question has to be asked whether the principal advisers, the architects who are responsible for the drafting of this bill, set out to rewrite this bill in this way. The Green Party and United Future say that Part 1, about which the Clerk of the House has raised a lot of concerns, has been substantially rewritten so there is no problem in supporting the bill. But what happened to Part 2, which concerned the State sector management part, and also Part 3, where the universities have expressed a lot of concern about the intrusion of the Government into their academic freedom? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003ESo why should those two parties, the Green Party and United Future, simply accept that Part 1 has been caught out by the Clerk of the House, and simply cave in to support Part 2 and Part 3? No doubt, Mr Speaker, you will allow us time to raise rigorous questions during the Committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWe also raise objection about some of the other issues. The first is that during the last 10 years the Fiscal Responsibility Act has played a significant role in guiding the focus and behaviour of past Governments. It has served the people well. We are opposed to the collapse of this independent legislation, to become part of the Public Finance Act. Of course, the Minister and others have argued that it is no big deal because the substance of the Act has been maintained and the parts strengthened. But the reality is that the form and perception is just as important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWe were told during the select committee stage that when the Fiscal Responsibility Act first collapsed, to become part of the Public Finance Act, it was going to be Part 1 of that Act. At the end, it became Part 2 of the Act. The reason, we were told, was that it was really important to demonstrate accountability, and presentation of the Government accounts was important, so that had to be Part 1, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act had to become Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThis example, in itself, demonstrates that the order of presentation and the collapse of independent legislation to become part of other legislation is just as important to set the tone of the intention of the executive. The executive is sending out a message that the focus on constraining Government spending through a forward-looking document such as this independent legislation, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, is not as important. I point out that, at times, form is just as important as substance. We are not convinced that the Fiscal Responsibility Act, particularly under this \u201Ctax and spend\u201D Government, is ready to be collapsed and lose its independent status. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe other point is that the second part is meant to strengthen the public service sector. One of the newly introduced functions in this legislation allows the State Services Commissioner to review the machinery of government across all areas, including allocation of functions to and between departments and other agencies, and the desirability of the creation of a new department. One assumes that this new provision is not intended as a one-off, but as a permanent, ongoing function of the commissioner. What concerns us is that the process was not spelt out as to who can request a review by the State Services Commission, and how often, and what were the criteria for setting up new departments. One has to have a lot of confidence when vesting so much power in a Government department. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7cab527769b4f71970f65cfbe9bb0dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7cab527769b4f71970f65cfbe9bb0dd\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E The Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill is a mammoth bill. It is 500 pages and is a rewrite of the 1989 Public Finance Act. It is a bill that the House should take a great deal of interest in and have a great deal of concern about. From a financial perspective it is one the landmark pieces of legislation that this Parliament is based on. Along with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which becomes entwined within this bill, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, it is probably the most significant legislation in relation to the way in which the machinery of government is run and the $46 billion of tax revenue is spent by the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe bill came on the back of a Public Finance Act that from its early days until today set significantly high standards of practice for the public sector. In that sense, it came from a strong starting point. This bill was brought about in terms of the review that was undertaken to look at the Government and the way in which the State sector was operating. In some respects, I am forced to say that the review was flawed. It lacked rigorous definition of the problems involved, analysis, and the criteria for assessing the options available to it. As a result of that flaw, the first draft that came out in terms of the public finance legislation was extremely substandard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe have already heard a bit about the submissions made to the select committee, and I will address some of those individual submissions in a moment. But first I will just take a moment to thank the advisers to the committee, of whom there were quite a number, from a number of departments. They worked tirelessly for a long time to try to knock this legislation into shape. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIf we start with the first of the submissions, it was by the Clerk of the House, David McGee. David McGee is well known around Parliament as one of the truly great brains in this area. He has great knowledge. He has written a number of books on constitutional issues here in New Zealand and on the role of Parliament. When someone like David McGee comes to a select committee and says that the bill is \u201Ca Trojan horse\u201D, \u201Cvirus-like\u201D, and \u201Cpost-modernism gone mad\u201D, one takes a step back and asks whether this is well-drafted legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOne needed only to take a look at the face of the select committee chairman, Clayton Cosgrove, when Mr McGee was giving his address to the select committee, to know that the Government was, firstly, going to be found out for what it was trying to push through Parliament, and, secondly, that the Government would buckle at its knees because it could not get the bill through the House in its original form with the support of the Progressives and United Future because neither of those parties would have even thought about voting for the legislation in that form. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ELet us be under no illusion as to what the bill was attempting to do before David McGee had the chance to tidy it up. It was the dead hand of government\u2014the creeping hand of this socialist Government\u2014trying to entwine itself in all parts of our State sector and to get control of things like Crown entities that had been deliberately quarantined off by Acts of Parliament. I will come back to that very point in a moment, because I have in my hand\u2014as Chamberlain once said\u2014in this case a letter from the vice-chancellors of the New Zealand universities, and it has been signed by eight of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt contains an interesting part that I want to reflect on and, if I may, I will take a moment to read from the letter sent to alumni of the universities: \u201CUniversities were given an undertaking by Ministers Mallard and Maharey that in stage one, represented by the bill currently before Parliament, the Government would strictly maintain the status quo.\u201D But the letter goes on to state: \u201CIn stage two, which will lead to further legislation in the future, changes to the status quo are being considered. The power to review the functions and activities of universities and to advise on the establishment and abolition of universities is being considered.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to go back to David McGee\u2019s submission for a moment and to talk about what was in the bill before the Clerk of the House got a chance to tidy it up. [Interruption] Mr Hughes has a habit of interrupting, because he does not have time in his busy schedule to go and read very important legislation. I offer Mr Hughes a bit of advice. I could give him about a dozen documents. I realise that he can pick up the bill, that he is now advanced in his adulthood and is able to clutch a group of papers, 500 pages thick, with his vice-like grip, but that does not mean that the member can actually read. Nor has he demonstrated any ability to understand. My advice to Darren Hughes is to pick up the bill, have a read of it, and while he is doing that, to read the commentary and a couple of the submissions, because he will learn a thing or two. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EFor instance, the member might learn that under the bill in its original form, estimates were about to be removed from this Parliament. That would be a substantial removal of Parliament\u2019s ability to scrutinise anything. Under the Official Information Act, Parliament was going to be limited in its ability to question the executive, because under legal grounds\u2014not political grounds\u2014it would have been quite possible for Government departments to refuse to answer questions or to provide information. That would be, on political grounds, a disgraceful position to find ourselves in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI also note that it was not just the Clerk of the House who came before the select committee. Others to appear before the select committee were the Commerce Commission, led by Paula Rebstock, the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, and others. They made telling submissions to the select committee and had some impact on changing the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EBut in particular, I want to make reference to the submissions by Sue Newberry and Alan Robb. I want to say\u2014before the Minister of Finance has a meltdown\u2014that I do not support those submissions. I do not support their position, which was that derivatives should be excluded from the State sector. The State sector\u2014really the Debt Management Office\u2014demonstrated to the committee that it has a very solid grip on its very limited derivatives use. To argue that it is somehow exposing the New Zealand taxpayer to what could be an Armageddon of Enron-type derivatives is an exaggeration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to touch briefly on three major points before my time runs out. The first concerns the embedding of the Fiscal Responsibility Act in this legislation. That Act was an iconic piece of legislation. It was a piece of legislation that stood this Parliament and this country in fine stead. To take away from its significance by burying it within the Public Finance Act is, in my view, a retrograde step. Secondly, I want to talk about the move to aggregate outputs and to define things in the form of outcomes. While that is a noble thought, and while it has some great possibilities if it is administered correctly, I think there are huge risks that outcomes will, in fact, become very woolly thinking from very woolly ministries and will be pretty difficult to understand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226971ba5fee4c4cbd921909ad5f8d5461\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It is always a risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1271afffc3046c6a3bbf6060ce86372\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is always a risk. I would fully accept that in one sense, looking at the Immigration Service, the outcome we want there is to have immigrants coming to New Zealand, settling here, and making a positive contribution. That is the right outcome\u2014not necessarily the output, which could be that we are processing people through our Immigration Service sufficiently. We actually want the right people processed. I think there is a risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThirdly, I want to mention the Crown entities. As I mentioned earlier in relation to their role in universities, I think this legislation will have some impact on them, and I think that is probably unnecessary. We look forward to the debate at the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022835a2f235b054848a80d551cfffe8676\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef939726d635440cafe38282511a4a3c\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00225ab9594fba2444f487340848be563899\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ab9594fba2444f487340848be563899\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that it take the bill part by part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022811071775df94f4584b58aa1ef364550\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d7aa8d6a6c814c869d029b574b940534\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022003d6437d4d44b88815512cccece1c6c\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Public Finance Act 1989\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf8fe3f3a0274cea89551bd9a50f23ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf8fe3f3a0274cea89551bd9a50f23ad\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Part 1, in many respects, cuts to the heart of what this debate is all about, which is the spending of Government money. If this Government knows anything, it knows how to spend money. It loves spending money, and it will spend $23.4 billion worth of new money over the next 4 years. So the Government should have a lot of interest in this bill. I have no doubt that one of the reasons it decided to push this legislation through Parliament was that it knew it was going to spend so much money, and thought it had better have a darned good idea of where the money was going and how it was being spent. I fear for the Minister of Finance, because under this legislation he will probably be giving Government departments not only more money\u2014and when I say more money I mean a lot more, by any standards\u2014but also a lot more authority and accountability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe have seen in Government departments some quite excessive spending in recent times, in a number of areas. I do not need to get up in this Chamber and talk about things like hip-hop tours and twilight golf\u2014stuff that we know the Government has enjoyed funding, and looks forward to funding. We have seen excessive spending and wasted expenditure across a lot of areas. It is easy to look at things like health and education and to argue that, because they are such important parts of our economy and our society, somehow we should not challenge the idea that the money being spent in those areas is being spent correctly. For a moment, let us look at health spending in New Zealand. It will have gone from around $6 billion to around $10 billion by the end of next year\u2014a $4 billion increase, or around 80 percent of the original Budget spending. When I look through Part 1 of the bill, I do not feel a great deal of confidence at all that the $10 billion worth of expenditure in that very important area will be spent well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons why I do not have a warm, fuzzy feeling in my tummy when I look at Part 1 and think about the $10 billion that will be pouring into health is that this bill will allow for the aggregation of appropriations. It will allow a Government department to put together a number of appropriations into a much larger appropriation, which will be much more difficult for Parliament to scrutinise. I would feel a lot better about that if, when I put parliamentary questions to the relevant Ministers, I got answers that were worth anything more than the garbage that often pours out the other side. Maybe I will pop up to my office and pull out a few of the juicier answers. Maybe I could spend 5 minutes in this debate tonight on reading out the answers to questions like this: can the Minister explain to the House why $3.4 million of unallocated expenditure in XYZ vote has taken place? The answer: \u201CThat\u2019s for me to know and you to find out.\u201D, or something like that, is not an extreme example of the kinds of answers that come across my desk. What is this legislation going to do? [Interruption] Actually, I got one the other day about $5.7 million for the Seasprite helicopter. [Interruption] No, it is true. The Minister of Finance answered it. The Minister of Education, who is also the Associate Minister of Finance and who answers a few of those questions, is not very hot, though. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWhat will the aggregation of appropriations allow?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd0c28b2244345f4bd80695697339225\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s the dark side of the force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294afacb02afd4fce95ecd5f5c17d491e\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there is definitely a dark side, yes. He is the yang part of the yin and yang, is he not? Does the Minister have any hints as to what that member\u2019s new portfolio will be on Monday? Perhaps we should not go there. I thought of the customs portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da2eb06fae264960b505019c11b6f6a6\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Better than anything the National Party would be offering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022849585d7f8fc45b7a73c00b39b37b518\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It will certainly be better than anything we would offer him; I am prepared to accept that. As long as he does not become the junior whip; we are very fond of the existing one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d33f8f256414d67b88ac3cba1fec2d7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Been there, done that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d8c426b062845e68806287af1bbbdde\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, he has been there and done that. Well, one comes and one goes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224678af2dcd114a379c8b08f4faa0aa8c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: He hasn\u2019t got the hair for it these days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc98e1186def424cbb0c3f1795ce52d2\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: He does not have the hair. But it is little like public finance Acts: one comes and goes with that sort of stuff. The aggregation of appropriations will lead, in some portfolios, to real ambiguity about what is going on. We can see what will happen.The game will be played a little bit like this. The ministry will see how much it can hoodwink the relevant Minister in the chair, by putting together as many as it can of the most ambiguous and unrelated appropriations into one. So we will have the coffee service money being allocated and put together with the money for the new Seasprite helicopter parts for the one that crashed the other day. They will be put together in one appropriation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002248cfdc063603424f892c26d3e7fafe6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248cfdc063603424f892c26d3e7fafe6b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I recall that a long time ago, as a stage 1 English student, I learnt about stream of consciousness novels. We have just had a kind of stream of consciousness speech. I am still trying to work out what Mr Key was trying to say in that speech. As I recall it, he actually said that the National Party really supports this bill, but is desperate to find some reason to oppose it. Apparently, the reason to oppose it\u2014if I have it right\u2014is that output appropriations may comprise more than one class of outputs. I ask the member whether that is correct. That is the provision in the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ca9c9595a8e46b9af9e2c6822575253\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s right\u2014that\u2019s one of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce6e69c235de49c6bac20dcc0421e1d1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. That provision is designed to give a little more flexibility in what is occasionally a very rigid system within the Public Finance Act, in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThis is an important part of the bill, because it is the part where the Clerk of the House raised some very important issues. Contrary to what Mrs Wong seems to think, the Clerk is happy with the bill as reported back. He believes that the amendments in the bill take care of the objections that he had to the bill. [Interruption] Well, I have no problem with the Clerk raising issues. I would be worried if the Finance and Expenditure Committee had not listened carefully to the Clerk and dealt with those issues, but it has. So I say to Mrs Wong that she should celebrate success. She should stop living in the miserable little world of defeat that she inhabits at the present time. She should come out\u2014come out, if I may say so, and as I would say to a number of members of the National Party\u2014and celebrate success, along with the Government, at the present time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI also want to deal with very few other matters. What has happened in the bill is that the fiscal responsibility part, which was Part 1, has now become Part 2, so Part 1 is now the appropriations part. Part 1 is important in a very crucial constitutional sense. It is about the fact that the Government has to go to Parliament to seek approval for appropriations. That is the whole function of Parliament around the issue of confidence and supply, and the fact that the Government can survive if it can command a majority in those matters. But it is also about the issue of how we present those accounts and how they are seen to be properly presented. I think that the member was right, if I can allude to a previous statement, to say that outcomes can be very fuzzy. I do not think there is any way of solving that. There will always be attempts to try to define outcomes more closely, and there was always a tendency for the Government to drift back towards focusing on outputs rather than outcomes, because they are easier to measure and easier to show results with. Nevertheless, I think that the legislation is right, as the 1989 Public Finance Act was right, in terms of the focus on outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThere have been some strange things going on in terms of some of the criticism of the bill from outside. The select committee has quite properly dealt with some of those criticisms, and some of them were just basically tipped straight out of the window\u2014as they should have been; they were really rather peculiar. One of the most peculiar of those criticisms was the notion that Parliament, or the Government\u2014it was never quite clear which\u2014should set the accounting standards by which the Public Finance Act operated and under which the Government operated. Now, I have been in politics long enough to remember the time when the Government used to set its own accounting standards. I think it is fair to say that when it did so, the standards tended to be rather low and somewhat elastic, and it was very difficult to work out what was actually going on within the Government accounts. The Government can no longer engage in that kind of behaviour. It is very clear within the public accounts if the Government tries to engage in accounting fiddles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe second part of that was the notion\u2014which it is probably more appropriate to discuss later, although we can deal with it in this part\u2014that somehow or other, under accruals accounting it is easier to sell assets. I have to say to the people who have that strange view that the public\u2019s objection to selling assets has nothing to do with the accounting treatment thereof within the Public Finance Act. There is a quite simple political issue around Government ownership and public ownership of assets. That is the political test that the Government will always have to face on that issue. Accruals accounting gives a much more accurate measure of the fiscal consequences of the sale of assets, as long as those assets are properly valued, and that is one of the difficulties on occasion with the valuation of some State assets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI think that this is a good bill. There will always be some arguments around the fringes of this bill. I make no apologies for bringing the Fiscal Responsibility Act within the bill. That was the original intention; it is what Treasury supported in 1993-94. I think that Treasury was right at the time, because everything within the Fiscal Responsibility Act is appropriate to put within the Public Finance Act. The final point I would make in response to the member is that it is not for him to preach to me about fiscal responsibility. It is the National Party that wants a looser fiscal policy, not Labour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u002267104ea6048340ab9f8c41c5f7481e59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267104ea6048340ab9f8c41c5f7481e59\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I do not intend to take too long on this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022242147a6ce2a43dd9fc57cf354087b04\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: Take as long as you like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256d97dfccb754e21a6c288dcf5f74e1d\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: About 5 minutes is not too long; I will have made my point. I just want to compliment the Minister of Finance. He is a real character sometimes. He has a wicked sense of humour and he is very entertaining to listen to sometimes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022747d46d67b3f4b9f82b08f0bc73b8304\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Is this his valedictory?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0ada24e63d34e4186fe096da483f1d3\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014do not worry. The Minister was talking about the valuation of State-owned assets. I have a better idea: the Government should just not sell them. Then we will never get into problems with the valuation of those assets, and we will be able to steer clear of any ambiguity or problems that might occur.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EI believe that Part 1 is a very important part of this bill, just as Part 2 is. Part 3 is also important, because it involves the academic situation. I think Part 1 is important, as John Key stressed, as it allows for the allocation of money and expenditure\u2014the Government\u2019s finances. It includes all of that. When we add up the billions of dollars that go through the Government coffers, we see that Part 1 is a very, very important part of this legislation. Apart from the Minister talking about how some members of the National Party need to be a bit more clear, and some of them might need to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271fd30f9817347adbbe33c57605aef0d\u0022\u003EOpposition Member\u003C/span\u003E: Careful, careful now!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7deb4d3d9264d12aaf565f12cdf8b1c\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: That is what the Minister was saying, as far as scrutiny is concerned. Something I would like the Minister to clarify is whether, at the end of the day, the Government will be able to cover up a fiddle, and if it could, how that would happen and what would happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022383216b15a8c402d9b0d19a3c1bd324d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Hell, no\u2014you cannot even cover up Judy Bailey\u2019s salary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5a92bbb2b5b4ea9971a7d55ad71ff71\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is a very good point. But that is something I would like the Minister to address.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u00223137563c609e433eb9555d9f361d7f7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223137563c609e433eb9555d9f361d7f7e\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is really sad to hear that the Minister of Finance could not find anybody even on his own side of the House to go out and celebrate with him whatever he wants to celebrate. He is so desperate that I cannot resist taking a call to say to him that I am struggling to see how I can go out and celebrate Christmas, when he refuses to answer the call from my colleague John Key to put some turkey on the table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c8d43d3e20e4770a6cf33924cbd052f\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Turkey\u2019s on the table!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254b1e025521f4352b197f4bf12481a92\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the Minister that if he does not want to put the turkey out, maybe some Peking duck might do the job! Well, that got the Labour members excited; they have not felt like that for a while.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI really would encourage the Minister to take a few more calls. It is very encouraging to see that he is taking calls at such an early stage, but he has still not answered my question that I posted in the second reading. Was the inclusion of the cock-ups in Part 1 that were picked up by the Clerk of the House a deliberate move by the executive, or was it incompetence in drafting? That is a very simple question, and I feel that the Minister of Finance owes it to the public to say what happened.The select committee process is not an invitation for submissioners to rewrite legislation; it is a chance for them to say whether they have any actual concerns. However, the submission of the Clerk of the House led to a major rewrite of Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister to take a call on a very thoughtful submission made by Dr Graham Scott, the former Secretary to the Treasury. He raised good points, and I am looking forward to the Minister answering them. Dr Scott said that the changes proposed in Part 1 were meant to lead to more accountability in the way that information might link output to outcome. But he reckoned that would not be achieved by the attempts in this bill to aggregate the outputs. Indeed, a better outcome can arise only if a department started to express its outcome statement in more practical and assessable terms. That is so true. Sometimes we pick up the copy of a Government department\u2019s statement of intent and find a statement that it will improve the well-being of New Zealanders. I think that is a very admirable outcome, but to translate it into output certainly would be very difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EIf a department wants to demonstrate that it could have a set of good outputs that lead to the outcomes specified by the Government, then it should have a management plan that truly reflects the Government\u2019s intention. We are not too sure that what is expressed in Part 1 about aggregating outputs, etc., would lead to that. Dr Scott also pointed out that if we really wanted a major improvement in a Government department\u2019s output statement and in the outcome-oriented approach, Ministers themselves have to show a lot more interest in their Government departments, and be prepared to take responsibility for expressing those goals and those high-level outcomes in terms whereby the Government departments can translate them into outcomes that are practical and measurable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EAs well as questioning the rewriting of this legislation, we question whether there will be investment in research and in the training of those Government departments. One example I encountered just recently was during the financial review of the Takeovers Panel, when the Chairman, Mr John King, expressed dismay to the Commerce Committee that although the Government had promised it money for research into how the Takeovers Code could be made more effective, that funding had not been forthcoming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u0022b69e644d35a94cdfb2c94d39c3e1d73d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b69e644d35a94cdfb2c94d39c3e1d73d\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the opportunity to speak on what is now Part 1 of this bill. As Dr Cullen pointed out, it is Part 1 only because of the excellent work done at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and particularly as a result of the submission made by David McGee, the Clerk of the House. In the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill as introduced, this very important part, the Public Finance Act, was dumped at the back; now it is at the front, where it rightly belongs. I can see the crocodile tears now from Dr Cullen. I know that it may be symbolic, but, as Mr McGee pointed out in his submission, it is absolutely crucial that we get these things round the right way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt is also crucial, in our view, that we get the content right, and I look forward to support from other colleagues in the Chamber, particularly those from the Government, for the amendments I am putting up to Part 1, and I would like to draw members\u2019 attention to our amendments that are on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe first amendment I would like to put up is simply to omit subclause (4) of clause 6, \u201CInterpretation\u201D. This bill does an extraordinary thing; it actually deletes from the Act the definitions of \u201Ccontingent liability\u201D and \u201Ccost\u201D. I would have thought that, in this time of increasing contingent liabilities, the last thing we would want to do is to delete that definition from the Act, but that is exactly what the Government wants to do. I am surprised that other parties in this Committee have not already raised this concern. Yes, I know that contingent liability is defined under generally accepted accounting practice, but that is not an excuse for removing it from the existing legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe twin of that amendment is that we are proposing to insert total contingent liabilities under new section 26J, in clause 8, because we believe that the Fiscal Strategy Report, which sets out the Government\u2019s long-term objectives, should not only cover operating expenses and revenues and the balance between them, the total level of debt, and the total net worth; it should also state the Government\u2019s long-term objectives for contingent liabilities in particular.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EBut, wait, there is more. If members look at our amendment to section 26P, \u201CEconomic forecasts\u201D, in clause 8, they will see that we believe that the economic forecast requirements are far too narrow. What is there is, of course, all well and good, but we believe that the economic forecasts in section 26P(1) should also include forecasts of movements in New Zealand\u2019s overseas trade in goods balance, our overseas trade in service balance, and our reserves of natural resources. I would have thought that, given the M\u0101ui gas debacle, that would have been an obvious addition to the economic forecasts\u2014to actually know what the state of our stock of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels, is. But that is currently an omission from the economic forecasts, and I hope the Minister of Finance will see the merit of supporting this amendment, so that it can be added.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOf course, those economic forecasts should also include some measures of social well-being and environmental quality. The Government has a lot to say about triple bottom lines. Its members go off to Johannesburg, to Rio Plus Ten, and present a report, the Hon Marian Hobbs, the Minister for the Environment, puts out a statement about the Government\u2019s intentions on triple bottom lines, and the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, waxes lyrical at conferences about triple bottom lines. But do members actually see it in the Economic and Fiscal Updates? No, we do not. I think it is time for the Government to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to presenting a whole-of-Government perspective on these issues. We would extend that to new section 27(2), in clause 10, so that in the annual financial statements the Government also reports on the environmental impacts of Government activities on water use, energy use, waste, emissions and discharge, and use of hazardous substances, and, in relation to the impact of Government activities on people and communities, such criteria as life expectancy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdf5e62a0e8743d28fba8ea24a1b74d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdf5e62a0e8743d28fba8ea24a1b74d4\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E We are debating Part 1 of this huge bill, and I want to deal with clause 6, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, which deals with the definitions of Crown entity and Crown entity group, and the meaning that is given to a Crown entity. The Government argues that the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen exclude tertiary institutions and universities from that. In fact, all that it has done is to exclude them from some of the requirements to provide information. But the Government is not preserving the status quo. In fact, it is being very tricky with regard to its definition of the status quo. The Minister may say that he is preserving the status quo, because in practice the State Services Commission may offer policy advice on higher learning issues to tertiary institutions\u2014the commission may offer that advice.Yes, that is the status quo, but the commission does not have a statutory, legislative requirement to do that. In fact, if we are to legislate for the commission to be brought into doing that, why do we have the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education? Are those not the proper agencies for the Government to seek policy advice from? Why trick around with the definition of the status quo? The Minister knows that in reality that is what he is doing. He looks bewildered, but he knows exactly what I am talking about. He has seen the same correspondence that I refer to. He knows that the status quo in practice is not the same as it is in statutory terms. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe other day I ran into the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the Koru lounge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022993c09e1c10643d0ab92bcd9db8ab6d4\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Name-dropper!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae00ed2662a14ea1bb6c8cbadd6f2f2c\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: I had never met Sir Geoffrey Palmer before, so yes, I am name-dropping. He is one of Labour\u2019s people. It was on the same day that the New Zealand Herald had published an editorial that decried the undermining of academic freedom by this bill. I showed Sir Geoffrey Palmer the editorial, and he was astounded by it. He said that he had understood that when the amendments to the Education Act were passed he had safeguarded the universities from that very issue. He was appalled that the party he had led\u2014his own people\u2014now that it was in Government, would do that to the universities, when he had tried not to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere are polytechs that have behaved appallingly when it comes to public money, and they should be brought under control. Nobody is arguing against that. Christchurch Polytechnic is a case in point. However, this Government is using one institution\u2014and there are more, but I am naming one\u2014as a Trojan Horse to rope all tertiary education institutions into the same corral and exert control over them. The universities have presented numerous submissions to the Government on this issue. In fact they were assured, in the words of the former State Services Commissioner, Michael Wintringham, that the universities had been brought into this legislation \u201Cmore in the nature of a cock-up and not a conspiracy.\u201D They were assured by Mr Wintringham that tertiary education institutions would be excluded from that provision, but all that the Government has done, as a sop to the Vice-Chancellors Committee, is to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that excludes them from the reporting requirements set out in clauses 174 to 176. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThat is not enough. The Minister needs to take a call to explain why this Government wants to include universities and public tertiary institutions under the definition of Crown entities. I refer to clause 48(1); the Minister has seen it. The universities are clearly listed in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1e32131b4df4789816fab10e914bb2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1e32131b4df4789816fab10e914bb2a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I will take a brief call, because this is an issue that has had a certain amount of public discussion, of rather low quality I have to say. The ACT party once used to show some backbone\u2014if I may put it that way\u2014in dealing with special pleading that came from interest groups. Apparently now it is just another populist party that waves in the wind, and sticks its wetted finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. For the information of the member, I will explain that tertiary education institutions have been Crown entities since 1993. The Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill does not make them Crown entities; they are right now. Nothing has changed in that respect. What they wanted was to cease to be Crown entities and to be totally not related to the Crown in terms of a financial interest by the Government in tertiary education. That is what they wanted. They are not going to get that, and nor should they get it. The Finance and Expenditure Committee rejected overwhelmingly that submission from the universities\u2014and quite rightly so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThose institutions are bodies that do not pay rates, on the basis that the Government has a financial interest in them. On reading the rubbish I have seen in the last couple of days I have been tempted to offer them complete independence, in return for them paying rates to their local authorities. I think they might change their minds at that point and come scurrying back under the skirts of nanny State rather rapidly, in terms of the financial implications that that would have for Auckland University and Victoria University in particular, given the value of their properties within the central areas of Auckland and Wellington. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWe have put aside for the moment some important issues\u2014for example, the issue of the argument around ownership. We have put aside the issue of consolidation, which is being addressed by the Financial Reporting Standards Board. The only change the bill makes is that the State Services Commissioner has the legislative mandate to be able to advise on the wider State sector, which includes all the different varieties of Crown entities\u2014advice only, and nothing more than that, which he or she, of course, can do anyway, without a legislative mandate. It is not a requirement that the commissioner has to give advice. He or she may advise, and I think that that is perfectly appropriate. We appoint members to the councils of those bodies. Successive Governments have done so for many years. We still provide the largest part of the funding of many tertiary education institutions. The overall majority of the funding still comes from the Government. Indeed, the member herself used the term \u201Cpublic tertiary institutions\u201D. It is hard to use that term and then to argue that those institutions should not in some sense be encompassed within a very narrow and quite specific definition of Crown entities, which is much less restrictive upon them than the general definition of Crown entities within this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI have been appalled, as an ex-academic, at some of the comments that have been made by the universities in that context. They show a remarkable lack of understanding of what is within the bill. It is a play not for the status quo but for a major shift in terms of the status of universities within society at the present time, whereby the Government has no financial interest within the universities. That is interesting. When I was an academic, we took that interest for granted. My goodness me, we were subject to the State Sector Act. I was automatically dismissed as a university lecturer on being elected on election day in 1981, because I was a public servant under the definition of that Act. It did not affect in the slightest what I taught in my courses. I did not feel that academic freedom was constrained in any sense in terms of the opinions I expressed at the result of what was happening within the State Sector Act, as it was in those particular times in the predecessor of the current legislation. I have to say that the submissions made by the universities on the bill were pretty much without merit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWe have tried to take on board a number of technical issues and have dealt with those. The select committee was pretty overwhelmingly of the view that the bill in this respect should be pursued. I think the Opposition parties were, by and large, in agreement with that particular position, and that is a wise move. There are some difficult issues still to be worked through in terms of consolidation. There is an issue to work through in terms of the so-called ownership interest\u2014what it is, and what it means. That matter is put aside; it is not affected by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f278559c18364b159ee5e063fe8ec0e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f278559c18364b159ee5e063fe8ec0e3\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Contrary to what the Minister said, that is a very revealing and partial viewpoint. It is certainly not one the universities came to the committee with or still have on this very day, despite the Minister\u2019s amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe position, as he knows and as has been stated, is that the Public Finance Act set out the new Crown entity. A large number of entities were constructed, although the term was not properly defined in that Act. Instead, they simply became Crown entities because the Act said they were, and there are many others such as polytechs, colleges of education, school boards of trustees, the Commerce Commission, the Securities Commission, housing bodies, district health boards and so on. In fact, the designation in the Public Finance Act, as stated at the select committee, had little practical effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat was so because most sections of that Act do not deal with universities. I am reliably told that in that Act the Minister covered only five sections relating to universities. They concerned such matters, as one would expect, as the preparation of annual statements and auditing. Those sorts of matters are properly, and were at that time, part of the Act, and universities never found those matters unreasonable or burdensome, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThose sections did not impinge upon the universities\u2019 autonomy. They related back to the discussions that took place under the Lange Labour Government and the work done by the then Professor Keith and others to put together a settlement, because the University of Auckland and the University of Canterbury took a case against the Labour Government of the day. The universities were of the opinion, quite rightly, that the Government had failed to consult them on the Learning for Life reforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat is the historical background to the statements made by the Minister just now. As a former university lecturer, he knows how important and precious\u2014precious in the real sense\u2014universities have valued autonomy and academic freedom. I speak personally, because I have had a long-term association with the University of Auckland. The work that university has done was recognised by Oxford University in its appointment of Dr John Hood to the university. The size of Auckland University and the quality of the work it has done are known throughout the country and internationally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe real contention for Auckland University, and for other universities as well, is the question why this Act has changed the core nature, as they see it, of the relationship established under the Public Finance Act, particularly as the Education Act set out the intention very clearly that universities would have as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as was consistent with the services they provided and the efficient use of national resources in the interests of the nation, and so on. The Act also declared in section 161 that it was the intention of Parliament that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions were to be \u201Cpreserved and enhanced\u201D. Universities feel that greatly. Finally, section 161(4) states: \u201CIn the performance of their functions the Councils and chief executives of institutions, Ministers, and authorities and agencies of the Crown shall act in all respects so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in this section.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat is the background the university group presented to the select committee. Despite what the Minister said, it feels that the intention of those sections of the Education Act and the thrust of the work done by the Keith committee are deliberately being thwarted. I will talk more about that when we debate Part 3. So contrary to what the Minister said, those university representatives feel that this bill in its original form, and even with its recently proposed amendments, does not give effect to what they thought they had and what they had hitherto exercised at universities, council by council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a109c133b334860a0738fcde8df9906\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to Part 1 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, what I am curious to observe in this legislation we are debating tonight is an unprecedented backdown by a Minister in presenting legislation to this Parliament. As I count the pages in Part 1 that have been struck out by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it seems to me that three-quarters of the original Part 1 introduced into this Parliament has been struck out and replaced; only a quarter of the Minister\u2019s original intent remains. That is unprecedented. I do not recollect in my time in this Parliament any other occasion where a Minister has had three-quarters of what he or she had proposed to Parliament struck out by the select committee. What is more troubling is that I gather a lot of this was struck out on the strong submission of the Clerk of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhat this legislation is all about is the public scrutiny of what a Government is up to. Having been deputy finance Minister for a number of years, I understand to some extent what the Minister was trying to achieve. The issue is the compromise between the achievement of outcomes the Government is seeking to achieve and the outputs specified in estimates. I understand the problem\u2014that at times there is difficulty in making sure how well the outputs specified, which this Parliament approves estimates to fund, can ensure the achievement of the wider outcomes the Government wants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI think a number of issues need to be explored by this Committee in some detail tonight, because if we look at the parts of this Part 1 that are \u201Cstruck out\u201D, we can see that it is troubling that so much of what is struck out is not amended in the new provisions in Part 1 inserted by the select committee. A lot of this stuff is just struck out. For example, I am looking at all the provisions struck out under the bill\u2019s original clause 8, where a number of those provisions related to some of the principles around, and the fundamentally important parts of, the Fiscal Responsibility Act. They have simply been struck out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EBut incorporated in the new unanimous provisions of Part 1, and particularly in new clause 14, are the estimates. They have been reinstated. I think the Minister should explain to the House how the balance of what he was seeking to achieve remains within this bill, because a number of clauses around the Budget Policy Statement, the various fiscal updates, and the pre-election fiscal update are all in the \u201Cstruck out\u201D parts of Part 1, and there are a number of reinstatements of estimates requirements in the new unanimous clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThis is such important legislation, because it involves the transparency of the Government\u2019s spending plans and the ability of this Parliament to scrutinise Government spending and the way that that spending relates to the outputs and outcomes of Government departments. Yet it is not clear from Part 1 what the final balance of all that is. Quite clearly, when the Minister introduced this legislation he intended that there should be more discretion for departments: that outputs would be aggregated and that departments would have greater flexibility\u2014perhaps to pursue the Government\u2019s wider outcomes. The problem with that is that this Parliament has less ability to scrutinise particular expenditure in detail, because the aggregation of outputs leaves departments more flexibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI can understand what the Minister was trying to achieve, but he should explain to this Parliament what the changes delivered by the select committee to this bill will mean in that balance. What kind of balance will we now see, given these new clauses here with the specific outputs those estimates provisions will reinstate in the legislation and the way they will tie in with what he was trying to achieve? I think this legislation is so important that Parliament should hear some serious comment from the Minister on how the select committee changed what he sought to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022741ac5bc60db4d13ab0ea6ed83655f13\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia\u003C/span\u003E I start by thanking my senior whip for giving me the opportunity to come down here and debate this legislation this evening, keeping me away from the media party and so looking after my health. I very much appreciate that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EToday is something of a red-letter day, because I find myself agreeing with something Michael Cullen said about polytechnics. I think he is right on this issue. I believe there is an issue relating to polytechnics, as opposed to universities, in terms of responsibility and accountability and how polytechnics spend their money. It is a matter of public record and concern that they have been engaged in activities that are less than satisfactory. I do not blame them for that. I am simply saying that a loophole has been exploited, and on this issue I think the Minister is quite right in closing that loophole. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022421558fe8f614b0ba44b8c5b372f0116\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s Government policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292db88ebd1b44abb88b602aa51f85542\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: I accept there is that responsibility, but on this particular issue I think the Government is exercising good judgment in closing it down. I also think the House owes David McGee a debt of gratitude. The work he has done in bringing the legislation to a point where it is reasonably constructive and able to be debated rationally is something we should be grateful for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe issues that concern the National Party, with some gravity, are the appropriations. More than one class of output has been combined. On the face of it, that seemed a reasonable idea. A lot of the issues that come before Ministers are minor. Therefore, giving Ministers the flexibility to make judgments within their portfolios and within their budgeted expenditure is reasonably sensible. But the problem arises as to the quality of the Minister. Once a Minister is given the flexibility, the range, and the scope to deal with appropriations, if he or she is not capable of dealing with that then we have an issue. I know there are some members of the Government who probably have no idea that the letters \u201Cbs\u201D stand for \u201Cbalance sheet\u201D. I think their abilities to manage cash, read cash-flow statements, etc., are something that would concern most members of the business community if they realised just how big some of the budgets the Government has are. So anything that enables or allows that lack of accountability or control is something we simply cannot agree with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EWe are talking here about accountability for taxpayers\u2019 money, and we in the National Party take that extremely seriously. We have only to look at how some of the money in this country is being expended today to understand why we have concerns. We know that some members of the Government are very enthusiastic spenders. Today on television Dr Cullen waxed lyrical on how he intends to spend more, rather than reduce taxation or costs, and that gives rise to the types of concerns I am talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EFor example, the National Party is concerned about the level of welfare expenditure in this country, which is running at something like $20.5 million a day. We are experiencing the best of times, yet the working-age population on welfare is bigger than the city of Christchurch. The Government, in its latest Budget, intends to extend that welfare trap to middle New Zealand, as well, which is why we do not support the legislation and why we need the ability to hold the Government accountable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c033f84f797b4969a48859e4a904fc00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c033f84f797b4969a48859e4a904fc00\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I will take a brief call on section 26N, \u201CStatement on long-term fiscal position\u201D inserted by clause 8. This clause obliges Treasury, no later than the second financial year after the Act comes into force\u2014and, by my reckoning, that will be before 30 June 2006\u2014to present to Parliament a statement relating to a period of at least 40 consecutive financial years. That would be, if you like, a long-term forecast of New Zealand\u2019s financial position\u2014or, more correctly, the financial position of the Government or the Crown\u2014for the next 40 years. That will be a very welcome development, because one of the things that has bedevilled New Zealand in the last 30 years or so has been the concentration of successive Governments on short-term goals\u2014something that is understandable in a highly-politicised environment\u2014often to the exclusion of longer-term strategic thinking about the direction of the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EYet that longer-term thinking, if we think about it, is vitally important in a number of areas. I will mention just a few of them. The first one is superannuation. We actually need to know, here and now, what the liability of the Crown for superannuation is, going out 40 years. We would be well served if we had a well-researched actuarial assessment of what superannuation will cost the country over the next 40 years. I know that some work has already been done on that, and I have seen some of the projections, which, of course bring into account the demographics over that period of time, and other assumptions. Such an assessment would make the situation very, very clear for those people who still have doubts, for example, about the worth of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, commonly known as the \u201CCullen fund\u201D, and it would hold those parties to account in terms of throwaway lines about how we should just wrap the whole thing up and pay off some debt, or whatever. It is not so simple, and a 40-year projection would illustrate that for all concerned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThere are other things. Roading, for example, lasts for at least 40 years, if not longer. In fact, it is a bit like the carpenter\u2019s hammer\u2014as long as one keeps it maintained and upgraded from time to time, it will last forever. Transmission for the national electricity grid is a similar thing. Most of the transmission grid we have now has been in existence for 40 years. Hospitals are another case in point. Most of our hospitals have a very, very long life, and recently we have been going through a period of replacing many of them. Then we look at things that will be introduced in the future, I hope, like public-private partnerships. Certainly, if United Future has a bigger say in the next Government, that will be something we will be looking at much more seriously. Interruption] I would have thought the National Party might actually be in agreement with some of these policies, but maybe those comments just illustrate the point I am making about concentrating on short-term political expediency to the exclusion of longer-term considerations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EPublic-private partnerships could be used for prisons, roading\u2014as we already have in our legislation\u2014hospitals, and so on, and could enable the infrastructure development in New Zealand to proceed much more quickly. I am a bit concerned at times that we seem to be focused on funding all those capital costs out of current revenues, when we could take a longer-term view, smooth it intergenerationally, and end up with better outcomes for our nation. So I think the new provisions in the bill will be positive for the country. They are a very good inclusion, and I will look forward to seeing, before June 2006, the first 40-year projection prepared by Treasury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f38f838af21348faa47bbd9b4840e3d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f38f838af21348faa47bbd9b4840e3d9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I missed the contribution from Dr Cullen, but from the ensuing debate I gather that Dr Cullen suggested to the Committee that the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, which we are debating tonight, will actually ensure that we get better accountability for things like the debacle associated with Christchurch Polytechnic. Well, I have to say the Christchurch Polytechnic matter is about bad Government policy. It is the policy that gave something like $6.5 million to that well-known Labour Party lackey, Vicki Buck, and that needs sorting out. I would not have thought it took a bill of some two or three hundred pages to be passed under urgency\u2014at the same time as the press gallery party is being held\u2014to sort that out for the future. It always surprises me that a debate on legislation like this seems to be timed for when the press gallery has its annual party. [Interruption] The Minister suggests it is all about more scrutiny of taxpayers\u2019 money but maybe, on this occasion, he actually does not want the press gallery to scrutinise the debate. He does not want the press gallery to scrutinise the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIt is fine for Gordon Copeland to stand up and suggest that he has worked on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and has accepted the word of the honourable Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223a0e52c8-5bb1-4325-9870-21f4e3eb3702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd26e1756aa2449086391aa4bcbbb2a4\u0022\u003EMartin Gallagher\u003C/span\u003E: How can you think the press gallery is so shallow that they would not be here for this really important debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0a827450ab6429fafd452a2cded8fcf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I invite the member to raise his eyes skyward and look at the press gallery. It is absolutely empty! If the member cleans his glasses, I am sure he will see for himself that not one member of the press gallery is there, and that is probably the very reason the Minister decided to run a large piece of legislation through on the argument, which he gave the House, that it will improve transparency. I am sure that as we get further into the debate tonight we will come to the conclusion\u2014certainly on this side of the Chamber\u2014that this legislation is not about increasing transparency of expenditure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis is all about Dr Cullen being worried about transparency. He has been caught out and is so embarrassed at this huge gift of taxpayer money that has gone in the pocket of Vicki Buck that he has brought this legislation into the Chamber during urgency. When the press gallery\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db34e49af3a74a1cb75a7cc990c551f2\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t that National Party policy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3a359e7fc124bbfaad136c74b3aef78\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it was, absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224af3e610ac0440d180c2421f1d76dcd7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me, there is no need to suggest that this legislation that effectively wipes the Fiscal Responsibility Act is National Party policy. I assure Brian Donnelly that he has not done his homework if he thinks that this party will give way on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. It has worked well. We have had accountability, as we have seen with the Government being totally embarrassed by the recent Vicki Buck gifting affair at the Christchurch Polytechnic. We have seen the embarrassment it has caused the Government. Maybe Brian Donnelly should take a call if the Minister will not, and assure us that this legislation will provide more transparency. I do not accept that argument, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234c623968c164da5903e692cf90118a5\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Criticise them for not fixing it up\u2014that\u2019s fair enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf71ee71662b46b6a3128bf15cb9e99a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I do criticise them for not fixing it up. But I understand that Dr Cullen made a contribution earlier, suggesting that this legislation will mean those sorts of horrific wastages of public expenditure will be seen more easily. I do not accept that. Dr Cullen has rolled in this legislation so that we do not have the chance to really examine the estimates\u2014he is making sure it will be more difficult with the passing of the legislation\u2014and I have become concerned. What argument is Dr Cullen advancing that we need to be able to aggregate the outputs? I do not accept that from the Minister, and I am surprised that Brian Donnelly has come here and found that it does not need further examination. I suspect that we will have dumber Ministers being led by their departments. That is what will happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226212f8308d3741b58308585bfebf2053\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re ahead in the polls, don\u2019t worry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022507cd429091d4e938b0e256f007b216b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Cullen says that this legislation can pass, because Labour is ahead in the polls. I say to Dr Cullen that that has nothing to do with this, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e02cf91c8fe64c73b7736204be97d500\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It has not got a lot to do with dumber Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e27108aa3e644b5b77b631e3c7ec4c8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: It certainly does have a lot to do with dumber Ministers; I see one just coming through the door. Certainly what the Opposition is worried about is that this legislation before the Committee today gives more control to the departments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00223d9b14c828e54fe08f5078d52adc1539\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d9b14c828e54fe08f5078d52adc1539\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to challenge the Minister, Michael Cullen, who seemed to imply earlier that I was arguing that universities were calling for no accountability, at all. He knows very well that that is not what they were calling for. He confuses State control with accountability for public money. There is no way that the universities are saying they should not be accountable for public money. Why does the Minister not take a call and say why he thinks it is necessary to breach the spirit of sections 160 and 161 of the Education Act, why he thinks it is necessary to do away with the convention that academic freedom is protected, and why he thinks this Government should be\u2014as the academics have called it\u2014such a control-freak Government, eroding universities\u2019 independence and stifling their academic freedom? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe Minister should give one example of a university in New Zealand that his Government has had serious problems with, in terms of the spending of public money. He knows perfectly well, when he twists words and says that my argument is spurious because universities have always been Crown entities, that the Government is redefining the meaning of Crown entities in terms of Government control. That is what this legislation is about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022720207b631ad484084d5a177bec77ae4\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, it doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022399c0d3e154b4597ba5e55e7b74249d1\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister should take a call instead of sitting there shaking his head and repeating the word \u201CNo\u201D. The universities are not resisting public accountability. There is already existing legislation that requires them to be publicly accountable. The fact that some polytechnics have got away with not being accountable is the fault of this Government\u2019s own tertiary education\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220366b9a261f3484f983794c820a340ee\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t be ridiculous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230a31d5d785c44dd80fc77a38ce494ac\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: That member can take a call too, instead of shrieking like a gooseberry. This Government\u2019s Tertiary Education Commission does not do its job. It goes in and audits those institutions and gives them a clear bill of health, and it is not until the Opposition parties raise concerns about the spending of public money that it is revealed that they need to be brought under greater control. But not one of those issues has involved a university. The Minister should get up and, instead of arguing about the status quo and Crown entities, explain why he thinks it is necessary in New Zealand\u2014in a Western, liberal democracy\u2014to pass legislation that seriously undermines the autonomy and academic freedom of universities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ECan the Minister assure us, for instance, that he will not create a Minister responsible for tertiary institutions? Will we see a Minister responsible for tertiary institutions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1f1b861c4704777957c3f6e7b7e8df9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got one already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db4661f85c3642d28b714d5593f844a8\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: We already have one. And who is that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6309d18461e4ee786f75884fd30916c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Steve Maharey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a58a18d9989a447c97f7a9130a4a010f\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: I thought he was responsible for tertiary education, and not a Minister for universities. Is that what he already thinks he is? That is interesting. Will university council members be able to be dismissed for just cause? Can the Minister assure us that that will not happen, too? I challenge the Minister to take a call and answer that query. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat will happen to the private funding of universities when they come under the scrutiny of the Government if it feels that they are not promoting Government policy? Those are all fears the vice-chancellors have, expressed in the negotiations they have tried to have with the Government\u2014negotiations that have severely broken down. How will borrowing from universities be affected by this legislation? What effect will it have? Will the Minister for tertiary institutions have the right to conduct inquiries into the academic affairs of universities? Will research and papers produced by universities come under the proposed Public Records Bill? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db3585968444464a9c6f75e06bca286c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: What?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225db3085d7f1243fe9cc120c212654f41\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: That is what the Vice-Chancellors Committee has asserted. Perhaps the Minister can stand up and explain why that will not happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb7cbfd6bf2f4768a049523225b44bba\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re talking codswallop. They\u2019re away with the fairies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e645b29b8c0f4f39a0a2af0593ee6c3a\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Of course it is a nonsense, but will they? I challenge the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u0022872dd883db44446fa9c0e335b84bc3d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022872dd883db44446fa9c0e335b84bc3d9\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the previous speaker has sat down before she embarrasses herself any further. I wish that Deborah Coddington had taken some advice from whoever the ACT member was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it considered the bill. I know that the ACT membership changed midstream because of the party\u2019s change of leadership. The other thing Deborah Coddington should do is read the Government\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper, which removes a number of the requirements on tertiary institutions from this bill, including the Minister\u2019s power to request information relating to clause 175, \u201CGood reasons for refusing to supply requested information\u201D, and omits and substitutes provisions in clause 199 relating to bank accounts. However, I do not want to use up my 5 minutes on that. Everything I have heard Deborah Coddington say tonight relates to Parts 3 to 7. At the moment we are dealing with Part 1, so it was entirely inappropriate for the previous speaker to talk about schedule 6B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI return to Part 1 to discuss further the amendments I have put on the table. The first one, which I talked about before, relates to triple bottom line reporting\u2014the Government\u2019s commitment to triple bottom line reporting and the fact that it has not put its money where its mouth is. The Government says a lot about triple bottom lines but is not prepared to incorporate them in this legislation. It ought to, in section 27(2), inserted by clause 10, and in section 45B, inserted by clause 17. After all, what will be crucial to the future of New Zealand is not just its financial well-being but its environmental and social well-being. So I invite the Government and other parties to support our amendments on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI also invite the Government and other parties in this Parliament to support our amendments to section 27(2)(b), inserted by clause 10. I am looking forward to Mr Keys\u2019 comments on that\u2014as a man with considerable experience in this area; in fact, as someone the select committee relied on a lot for technical advice about derivative transactions, securities, investments, and guarantees\u2014and whether he thinks we need to insert a subparagraph that adds to the Government\u2019s annual financial statements a statement of all securities, derivative transactions, investments, and guarantees. We think it appropriate for that to be specified, in addition to the requirements under generally accepted accounting practices. It is very much a belt and braces approach in relation to derivatives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EWe do have some concerns there, which is why we also propose that in section 30(2), inserted by clause 14, in addition to the requirements that the Auditor-General must audit the annual financial statements of the Government, the Auditor-General should also conduct an annual performance audit of the management of Crown debt. When I discussed this issue with officials, they said that that was a rather unusual and exceptional thing to require the Auditor-General to do. But the extent to which the Government is engaging in derivative transactions, usually for the right reasons, does require such a performance audit. I am concerned that the internal scrutiny of the Debt Management Office could be changed through a change in management practices, but there is also the need for some external scrutiny. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe next amendment we will be putting up is to section 39(1), inserted by clause 17, which is simply to remove the words \u201C(other than an intelligence and security department)\u201D. We believe it is appropriate for Parliament to know what the intelligence and security services are doing in relation to future operational intentions. That is, after all, something that every other Government agency does, and we do not see why those services need to be an exception. There needs to be much more accountability to Parliament about the work of the security services. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThat, effectively, encompasses the additions we want to see to Part 1. We believe that the part would be more robust if the Government took a triple bottom line approach to all of its forecasting, reporting, and accounts, and if the Government extended its economic reporting to include trade in goods and services, reserves of natural resources, and social well-being and environmental quality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00226383abfe54f54722925ff3e4e254874b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226383abfe54f54722925ff3e4e254874b\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I want to respond to the amendments proposed by the Green Party in relation to derivatives and to make some comments around those, because the Finance and Expenditure Committee received quite a number of submissions on them, led mainly by Sue Newberry and Alan Robb, I think, of the University of Canterbury. I did not agree with their submissions, at all. They were based on the fact that they believe that under section 55 of the Public Finance Act\u2014which makes the New Zealand public unlimited guarantors of all public debt\u2014derivative transactions entered into by the Crown would, effectively, be guaranteed by the taxpayer of New Zealand. In one sense that is correct. But\u2014and I think this is the \u201Cbut\u201D people have to consider before they get too extreme\u2014we need to look at what might be happening in the State sector in relation to derivatives, and at who is actually using them. My understanding, and the understanding of the select committee, is that derivatives are being employed by the Debt Management Office. The derivatives are fundamentally interest rate derivatives. Basically, the office is looking to swap its exposure from fixed to floating and from floating to fixed. There is some limited use of credit derivatives, although I am not sure it has progressed to the latter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EEssentially, for all intents and purposes, the first thing the Committee needs to consider is the liability around when the Crown actually purchases derivatives, and when it sells them. When it purchases derivatives, it is like purchasing insurance. It has a liability totally quantified by the premium under which it pays, and therefore the Committee should not feel at all concerned about that. Where the Crown writes derivatives, that can pose a liability. We have seen examples of where fraudulent activity takes place, and Nick Leeson is a great example of that in Barings Bank. But I think there are quite a number of safeguards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe questioned the select committee about the process under which the review of derivative transactions was taken within the Debt Management Office, and the segregation and separation of who was able to undertake those transactions. I think it was quite clear to the committee that there was a rigorous process in place in respect of derivative transactions, where they were transparent, where they were mark-to-market, where they were consistent with the size of the portfolio, where they were very vanilla derivative transactions, and where they were not of the nature to which Sue Newberry and, I think, her fellow submitters wanted to claim that the Crown was exposed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt is also worth recognising\u2014because one or two others internationally have also made statements around that sort of Armageddon scenario in derivatives\u2014that derivatives can reduce risk and exposure for the Crown quite significantly. It all comes down to the people who are undertaking them, and to the rights and responsibilities they have in the process for managing that risk. At this stage, unless some select committee has been misled\u2014and I have no reason to believe that one has\u2014then I do not think there is a risk to the Crown, and it should be able to continue to use those. Where other Government departments or parts of the State sector wish to undertake derivative transactions, then, first, there would have to be some very solid reasons for doing that. It would be unlikely that most Government departments would, although some actually can manage their own foreign exchange exposure and, on that basis, they could have currency derivatives. Again, as long as those are handled in the right way, with the right process and the right procedures, then I do not think that is something for alarm and concern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe amendment put forward by the Greens to section 27(2)(b) really just says that a statement of all securities, derivative transactions, investments, and guarantees should be listed. In one sense, that is a fairly benign statement. I would not argue that the world would cave in because we had that in the legislation, but my understanding is that that would be exactly the risk a committee would be looking at and reviewing. As long as the risk committees of those various departments of Government are doing their jobs properly and are in fact looking at those, I cannot see why we need to insert that physically into the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ESo I do not agree with the position taken by the Greens. I certainly do not agree with the position taken by Sue Newberry, and I do not think we should have any degree of alarm. My involvement with the Debt Management Office, in a professional sense, goes back for the last 20 years, and in my opinion it acts extremely professionally in the marketplace and does a very good job of managing New Zealand\u2019s debt. We should in fact be quite proud of what it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u002204754a52c2e3492596ae871d15d75352\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204754a52c2e3492596ae871d15d75352\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef661122b2644b55be6f31ac951d9207\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef661122b2644b55be6f31ac951d9207\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this riveting legislation. I am sure that for many in the Committee who bothered to scrutinise the legislation\u2014other than, perhaps, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u2014this will be the first time they have actually seen the appropriation process down on paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe bit I want to see if I can get some answers about is section 26A, inserted by clause 8, about the transfer of resources between output expense appropriations. I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has worked in the system that that is probably not a bad idea, because Ministers can find themselves having to grapple with a rigid process to make comparatively small adjustments that would be much more easily dealt with outside the appropriation process, without upsetting accountability. The problem, of course, with that multi-output class appropriation is just how far it can be pushed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI will use an analogy that is nothing to do with the Government\u2019s finances but is to do with the parliamentary process. We have seen the way that flexibility in drafting legislation is being used to create bills with very few parts, so that we do not have long Committee stages. Parliament goes along with that flexibility, except it can be abused\u2014and often is, particularly under the watchful and penetrating eye of the current Leader of the House. It is not hard to imagine at all that this provision could also be manipulated and pushed beyond the boundaries this Parliament has imagined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ETonight we are taking a pretty benign view of the provision, because I suppose we all believe it will be used in good faith. But when I look at the restrictions on this capacity, they do not seem to me to be very robust. Could the Minister tell us, for the benefit of our information, whether there are restrictions to do with accounting standards, the Standing Orders, or any other process of Parliament that would hedge the way a Minister of Finance is able to use these capacities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThere are quite vague definitions like \u201Csimilar output classes\u201D. How similar is similar? I can look through the education estimates and see at the moment a long list covering everything from school transport to curriculum support, covering hundreds of millions of dollars in about 50 different categories. Could I, as the next Minister of Education, collapse that into one appropriation? I do not know the answer to that question. It is not evident to me from the bill, which is why I am asking the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecab78fbd384411f948328b57496f4e8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It would have to go to a regulations review, and it would have to be confirmed in an appropriation bill, because it\u2019s a regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b28c1fef1dc4c0696630047973fef3e\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is a regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a32e7a9ea2f4defa82f50390cdbc6e7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: So you\u2019ve got a double check.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022606e2649ddc54f05bd2e8dcef689df6b\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: So the answer is yes, subject to any pressure from the Regulations Review Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c53eaf8324ee4ddda632370b940d0cc5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It would be most unlikely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222766461eccd046e0b403445209eae817\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there could be a purpose in it, because any Minister would love more flexibility than he or she has. Ministers would love to be able to move money around without being subject to too much scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d9bcb60f4064e23a6b134947de3aa7c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The 5 percent levy would make that very difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205b3981b0fdb41d08521e88eab39af52\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: That is probably the most meaningful. The provision refers to the amount transferred not increasing the appropriation by more than 5 percent. I do not quite understand that, because if there are a number of outputs within an appropriation, I could shift them around without making any difference to the total appropriation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7a242207676428da36623167f8cac3c\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: That was the limit, wasn\u2019t it? Five percent was the previous limit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c37addde502d49e899a4a930847ac074\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: But it is a limit on increase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229121c2d47249485d8260fbb99b201397\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: I think you could only move up to 5 percent before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4ae2526234c48feb9434b4e03abe89c\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: But now I have the capacity to bunch output classes under one appropriation. [Interruption] The question is not so much about the increase in the appropriation\u2014I am not worried about that\u2014but about how far I can go at the start to bunch them up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6d51a7ef80d4f71bed684b6c99500a5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The one you\u2019re adding to can\u2019t increase by more than 5 percent, so that is actually quite tight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d77bbac329048ca89ebf863656b5955\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: So when a new Budget cycle starts, I cannot bunch them in a way that adds more than 5 percent to an existing appropriation. If that is the right answer, then I will feel a great deal less concerned about the flexibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022540264707900489a869f6b66faa75e66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022540264707900489a869f6b66faa75e66\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002245f8b49bfe5a47a38d35d3fc791fca11\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000898\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 6 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000899\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (4).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002223708764c45d490485c87c1d49a102e7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000900\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 8 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000901\u0022\u003Eto add to new section 26J(1)(a) the following new subparagraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000902\u0022\u003E(vi)\ttotal contingent liabilities.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e5f05c1ef11b4a5d8ac37cf41766884c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000903\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 8 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000904\u0022\u003Eto add to subsection 26P(1) the following new paragraphs:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000905\u0022\u003E(e)\toverseas trade in goods balance\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000906\u0022\u003E(f)\toverseas trade in services balance\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000907\u0022\u003E(g)\treserves of natural resources\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000908\u0022\u003E(h)\tsocial well being\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000909\u0022\u003E(i)\tenvironmental quality.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002231d80a5dfc0a4c1ca2fef38e00bc66c1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000910\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000911\u0022\u003Eto insert in new section 27(2)(b), above subparagraph (v), the following new subparagraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000912\u0022\u003E(iva)\ta statement of all securities, derivative transactions, investments, and guarantees.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a4fb9cc3859649cfa6ed769091ea33c4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000913\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000914\u0022\u003Eto add to new section 27 (2) the following new paragraphs:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000915\u0022\u003E(c)\tinclude statements that show the impact of Government activities on the environment. This will include, but is not limited to, a statement of:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000916\u0022\u003E(i)\twater use\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000917\u0022\u003E(ii)\tenergy use\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000918\u0022\u003E(iii)\twaste\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000919\u0022\u003E(iv)\temissions and discharge\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000920\u0022\u003E(v)\tuse of hazardous substances\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000921\u0022\u003E(d)\tinclude statements that show the impact of Government activities on people and communities. This will include, but is not limited to, a statement of:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000922\u0022\u003E(i)\tlife expectancy\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000923\u0022\u003E(ii)\tphysical well being\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000924\u0022\u003E(iii)\tsocial connectedness\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000925\u0022\u003E(iv)\temployment and unemployment\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000926\u0022\u003E(v)\tincome inequality\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000927\u0022\u003E(vi)\thousing affordability\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002263ee63cc8d4a49b79b4976f82f9d3c41\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000928\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000929\u0022\u003Eto add after paragraph (a) of new section 30 (2) the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000930\u0022\u003E(ab)\tconduct a performance audit of the management of Crown debt; and.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e7f1d8598351447380949c26669f1504\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000931\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000932\u0022\u003Eto omit from new section 39(1) the words \u201C(other than an intelligence and security department)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022468803bb176047ea8412999120fac94c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000933\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000934\u0022\u003Eto insert in new section 45B(2)(a) after the word \u201Cposition\u201D, the words \u201Cincluding contingent liabilities\u201D. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223ae24f36476844d98676ec18f9066a4f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000935\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000936\u0022\u003Eto add to new section 45B(2) the following new paragraphs:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000937\u0022\u003E(d)\tinclude a statement of environmental performance that includes, but is not limited to, a statement of:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000938\u0022\u003E(i)\twater use\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000939\u0022\u003E(ii)\tenergy use\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000940\u0022\u003E(iii)\twaste\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000941\u0022\u003E(iv)\temissions and discharge\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000942\u0022\u003E(v)\tuse of hazardous substances\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000943\u0022\u003E(e)\tinclude a statement of social performance that includes but is not limited to, a statement on:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000944\u0022\u003E(i)\tstaff turnover\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000945\u0022\u003E(ii)\tethnic and gender representation in management positions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000946\u0022\u003E(iii)\tstakeholder perceptions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000947\u0022\u003E(iv)\tcommunity involvement\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000948\u0022\u003E(v)\tpay and employment equity\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000949\u0022\u003E(vi)\temployee health and safety.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fa6c7afab9d34c529fedb664503495de\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000950\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f8ab42f203ae41dc8f533c7f37cece22\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022edf1c6c884c74a299943f175068a484c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222ba7ffc1f63b4a67b27b9995c7250a59\u0022\u003EPart 2  Amendments to State Sector Act 1988\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f75eb7ddaa05496a8ebe912064cf8fd8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 2, clauses 33 to 45, includes debate on schedules 3 and 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c081eb30269543079f634bcdce85ff2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c081eb30269543079f634bcdce85ff2f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Those who have taken some time to review the bill will understand that it is quite complex in parts. Part 1 is about amendments to the Public Finance Act, Part 2 alters the State Sector Act, and Parts 3 to 7 affect Crown entities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EPart 2 is very interesting indeed, because it looks to extend the role of the State Services Commissioner in building a strong State sector and showing leadership. It is very interesting, because this bill came to the House at the time when the Amokura Panoho incident broke. The Government did not necessarily like it that someone in her position was involved in the M\u0101ori Party. As I understand it, a number of Ministers less than covered themselves in glory. In fact, to put it bluntly, from memory, the Minister in the chair, Mr Mallard, shot his mouth off on public radio and was forced by, amongst others, the Minister of Finance to make a few conciliatory statements and apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3844612353849eca1eb6c7a70bb4085\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Cool it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a524c003d81b463586e62d84e6e95047\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CCool it.\u201D, I think, was the expression. A lot of \u201Ccool it\u201D was going on at that time. It is quite interesting, because this provision will allow the State Services Commissioner to go out and set a code of practice and a code of ethical standards on the way that the State sector should behave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bd75be464b6417999db28ca7c1d5a14\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Does he belong to the Labour Party?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dac4869337c4ba29b6b4be35abf8598\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That could be part of the dictum that comes from the State Services Commissioner\u2019s role. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that one of the areas where I think there is likely to be quite intense debate, and it goes back to the Panoho incident, is behaviour during the run-up to an election. The State Services Commissioner is likely to come out and say that here is the code of conduct for the way that State sector employees should act in the run-up to an election. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, there is a bit of sense in having a code around the way that State sector employees should act and the way they should engage. They could clearly have a conflict of interest, and we would acknowledge that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EHowever, in the submissions that took place, the Public Health Association made quite an interesting point. The association supported the provision in general, but raised the point that the commissioner has no statutory requirement to consult with relevant parties in developing a code. There is no responsibility at all to consult with anyone, in terms of developing a code. So we could see all sorts of different spin being put on exactly what that code could do. But equally this is all about central government starting to try to dictate more and more in a statement of conduct the way things will happen, extending it to some really interesting parts of the State sector and, potentially, on into Crown entities and the like. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe second element of the code that will be developed by the State Services Commissioner was referred to by the Nurses Organisation, which thought that the code not only was unnecessary but also could be unfair to employees. We have seen some interesting behaviour by one or two Ministers, and by one Minister who is sin-binned at the moment, when they have felt challenged or threatened by members of the State sector and their involvement in potential political parties\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c2e437983504e8797e6f99ec63eb580\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s actually the public service. It\u2019s not relevant to this bit. If you are already a public servant, you will not be affected by these changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223048458e566c4edd883ee43a1a0b125a\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister should take a call and clarify the matter, but we accept that point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe second issue I want to raise is the extension of the State Services Commissioner\u2019s power to issue codes that are more widely intended and could override the existing professional codes in place. While that is not the intention, it is possible that the professional code could cut across existing codes of conduct that are actually in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIn part, the whole issue around the State sector, its behaviour, the way it interacts, and the way in which it should be able to operate is likely to create some interesting situations, not only as we go into an election but at various other times. At the moment the Judy Bailey incident is quite an interesting example of where the State sector on the one hand is telling\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u002228a38a4540bb45e7979c8d70c4f961f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228a38a4540bb45e7979c8d70c4f961f1\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 has more of this wishful thinking that the Government tries to write into legislation. The Government seems to believe that if it puts it into law, it will happen, or that somehow it elevates it or makes it more certain, when it is behaviour that anyone should be involved with. Most of the provisions in this part to do with senior leadership and management capability in the public service should simply be the functions of a good employer. There is nothing particularly special about the need to ensure succession and that there is capability coming through the ranks. It does not really matter whether one is running a garage with two apprentices and a boss, or running the public service, the same requirements are there. So the Minister needs to explain just why he is bothered with all of this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt states here that the State Services Commissioner has to make sure that there are sufficient senior employees able to fill chief executive and other senior management positions. Well, I have never seen a vacant one. I have never seen a department without a chief executive. Sometimes an acting chief executive fills in, and sometimes it can take a wee while to get one, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that legislating the provisions in clause 40 will change any of the processes for finding the right person for the job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI have a question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard. Is this restricted to the New Zealand public service? It has had an injection of Australian capacity\u2014I would like to call it talent, but let us just settle for capacity. It has often had civil servants from the UK, where there is a pretty neat fit between the public service\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232030de33e714355b07b67a161b7288e\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Chief executive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222722e062aeaa418cbc2b9babedeeaefd\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: We have had chief executives come from Australia. How can we tell whether the State Services Commissioner has not fulfilled the objects of the Act? Is it when there are not enough New Zealanders to fill chief executive and other leadership positions, or is the whole world covered by the scope of this object, as long as there is someone somewhere? This provision does not mean anything unless it can be breached, and I want the Minister to tell me that. If this is a law, how do we break it? If this is in legislation, how does the State Services Commissioner fail in his responsibilities? How can an Opposition tell? The trouble with a whole lot of this wishful-thinking legislation is that we cannot tell whether they did it or they did not do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is like the tertiary education legislation. The Tertiary Education Commission was able to show that an information technology course given out to 18,000 people on a disk, when only 600 people completed it, fitted brilliantly with the objectives of the tertiary education strategy, and I would say that it is the same here. Whatever the State Services Commissioner does about anything to do with this public service will fulfil this law. So can the Minister tell us what he has to do to make sure that he has not fulfilled the requirements we are about to vote on? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI am also interested in the provisions to provide advice. The commissioner has to provide advice and training on career development for staff in the public service. What has the commissioner ever done except that? That is the job. The commissioner must provide advice and guidance to employees within the State services at times that affect the integrity and conduct of employees within the State services. Well, we do need that because the current State service is operating in an ethical vacuum. We had the worst example of conflict of interest in a public body that I have seen in 20 years around the public service, down at Christchurch Polytechnic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3218331d9d44c4098e4c4cd67d6ebbe\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not the public service.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022109046a0e64f47ee97a58ea2460b131a\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: It is covered by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221429871a06234bfe81c4867f9dc7781c\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: The member should get his terms right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa6a559bdca5442f895808f32ba9f2a7\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: It is covered by the broader bill, and here is how it is connected. Ministry of Education officials could not see the conflict. Even though the details of it were given to them, experienced civil servants like the chief executive of the Ministry of Education could not see the problem, and, from my questioning at the select committee the other day, they still cannot see it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022afb648d1576441baa055aac4c426e1b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afb648d1576441baa055aac4c426e1b4\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up from where my good colleague the Hon Bill English left off, because this is just junk law. As Bill English told the Committee a moment ago, there is no purpose in having this prescriptive garbage in our law. How on earth do we determine whether someone has breached it? I draw the Minister\u2019s attention to clause 41 in Part 2, and in particular to new section 57 in that clause. New section 57 purports to lay out standards of integrity. In fact, section 57(1) states: \u201CThe Commissioner may set minimum standards of integrity and conduct that are to apply in\u2014(a) the Public Service: (b) all or any Crown entities:\u201D\u2014and that is what Bill English was getting at, as Crown entities, of course, include tertiary institutions\u2014\u201C(c) the Parliamentary Counsel Office: (d) the Parliamentary Service.\u201D But then if we go on to new section 57A, it states that if the Minister approves, under section 57A(2)(a), they do not have to have any integrity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed4798237b934c20aa29bfcd76e12808\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: And this Minister would be the first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022630b3af10172450e86e76441a6ef77fc\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, would be a classic to say: \u201CNo, no, you don\u2019t have to worry about that.\u201D Section 57A(2) states: \u201CHowever, an agency referred to in section 57(1)(b) to (d)\u201D\u2014which is the public service, Crown entities, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and so on\u2014\u201Cmay derogate from a particular standard \u2026\u201D. So they can actually be excused from performing with integrity if the Minister says that they can. What on earth does that provision mean? What is the Minister proposing should be allowed there that necessitates that law? I think we deserve an explanation of that. If the Minister proposes to say that a Crown entity can tell lies, he should tell Parliament now. If not, why is that provision there? Why on earth does the Minister require a provision in the law that states that the Minister can give approval for a Crown entity or the public service\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264676b26cf2f4132a406876b93923ee9\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Wasn\u2019t this member in charge of trade? Would the member like to talk about that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022957db3e7ad594f1bb31ea8ecaf480f32\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister owes it to this Parliament to tell us what that clause means. What was that bit from the Immigration Service about \u201Clying in unison\u201D?So now we can have the public service lying in unison if the Minister gives it derogation to do so. Is that what this clause is about? I think the Minister owes Parliament an explanation. If he expects Parliament to support this junk law\u2014which is what it is\u2014he owes us an explanation. This Parliament should not pass this part without an explanation of why the Minister wants the opportunity to tell the public service it can lie in unison and sing from the same song sheet, because this is about integrity. This clause says the Minister can allow a department not to exercise integrity, to deviate from the standards set out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhat does it mean? I think we are owed an explanation of what it means. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the Committee what it means, does that mean he supports lying in unison? What is it that the Minister seeks with that clause? What kind of lying in unison and singing from the same song sheet is that clause meant to allow the public service? The public service is important to this country. I believe that the public service has integrity. This kind of junk law actually belittles and damages the public sector, the State sector, because it puts in our law a provision for the public service to behave in a lesser manner than the manner expected from the principles of integrity. I think this Chamber deserves to know what on earth this clause means. I am prepared to sit down so that the Minister can take the call and explain to the Committee why he has put this clause into the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u00220dedd37cb44449e7ad2b8184c9572516\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220dedd37cb44449e7ad2b8184c9572516\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E This part suggests that our State Service is in dire straits under this Government. It says we need a special part of legislation simply to say: \u201CProvide for new leaders to come through.\u201D That is what new Part 4 inserted by clause 40 does. I ask the Minister why on earth we need good leadership training and planning to be included in legislation. That is the bit I cannot figure out. Are things so bad that we have to pass a law in Parliament, under urgency, making the State Services Commissioner responsible for \u201Cdeveloping and promoting a strategy for the development of senior leaders and managers in the Public Service;\u201D? Is the Minister seriously telling us that that is not happening? Why on earth are we passing a law to make that happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4b39686d13a4c0e8afaf6385ea429e5\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Not a whisper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246b2148a5d0443a5be686fe6b38a600c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Not a whisper! Has that not been happening all along? Then we see that a new clause has been put in. We are going to require some general principles, and the chief executive of each department must: \u201Coperate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer;\u201D. What does this mean compared with the Employment Relations Act? Is this an extra burden upon the chief executive of a Government department? I ask the Minister whether this requirement to be a good employer is something in addition to the Employment Relations Act. What on earth is this about? And what happens under this legislation if a chief executive is not a good employer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254ca8f4fb36c491ab418503cc36a33bf\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da7b37e09e0246f5bf8ec995c4588db6\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing. So why are we sitting here, under urgency, debating this? Now I come to something else. I have to say that it is a bit rich coming from this Government, particularly with this particular Minister in the chair, that the legislation requires that the State Services Commissioner \u201Cmay set minimum standards of integrity and conduct\u201D. Trevor Mallard is telling the civil servants: \u201CHang on, fellas, you\u2019ve got to set some rules for integrity and conduct.\u201D This is from a Government in which the Prime Minister forges paintings\u2014and she is going to make a rule about minimum standards of integrity and conduct! This is from a Prime Minister who then has the evidence destroyed! This is from a Prime Minister who goes steaming through Waimate at 100 miles an hour and does not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5bc8e64b6c142269a9421904f8eb9ab\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Like a bat out of hell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022296a205cff874f7e9049dc6cc88b228b\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: No, she was going behind on her broomstick; that is how she did not know! She was going through like a bat out of hell\u2014and she says that the Government is going to require minimum standards of integrity and conduct! This is from a Government that has breached contracts. This is from a Government that had a Minister who received $195,000 and paid no tax on it. And this Government is going to set standards of integrity and conduct! Here is the interesting thing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0375641604b406cb27ddc4d4acc7381\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Forty-seven percent in the polls!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9ddcbc49fa7463db060b58fb92cd9ab\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t Jill Pettis great! Has anyone ever heard Jill Pettis give a speech in this Chamber, or does she just growl on like the Wicked Witch of the West, calling out from her chair, unable to get up and string two sentences together at this time of night? God knows what she has for dinner, but she can never string two sentences together. Then one notices an interesting thing. [Interruption] Is that the woman who has a pint of blood and then hangs upside down in the wardrobe at night for an hour or two?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bce3cf1a62ce406ea39e7bd2353ffb64\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Come to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022533b30d46d5e4c649b2eaa999281e73e\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 41 provides for new section 57, \u201CCommissioner\u201D\u2014wait for this\u2014\u201Cmay set minimum standards of integrity and conduct\u201D. Is anything stopping the State Services Commissioner now from setting standards of integrity and conduct? I do not think so. Notice that he is not required to do so; the legislation just says he may. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003ETrevor Mallard is breaking all the rules beside the Chairman. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I point out that the Minister is in a very privileged position, being beside you. At any stage he can take a call and contribute to this debate, but the idea that a Minister can interject through a member\u2019s speech using your microphone, while you do nothing, is actually an insult to this Chamber. I expect an apology for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4be5c699bc54fc59c0eeea42eb49647\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I think we were proceeding quite nicely. I thought it was helpful to the member, and I intend to leave it at that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022841c199930e342eb85a2ddd26a5efe36\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fabfa26578934783b3663e9fc2fc06b7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I have made a ruling on that point. Does the member have a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b88b3c85a49400a86fd76efcd5cdf8f\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you saying that it is OK for a Minister, from his seat beside you, to interject on an MP speaking at the Committee stage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022659b10fed1a94893a6420133972fbc1c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: No, it is not OK, and the Minister will not be doing it again. I did not think he was interjecting. I am doing the judging. I thought the Minister was being helpful to the member. I may have been mistaken. No apology is required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9a94971121f42acbe6fc7cc4ff9cbc1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9a94971121f42acbe6fc7cc4ff9cbc1\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E Quite a few submitters came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and complained about the provision that the State Services Commissioner \u201Cmay set minimum standards of integrity and conduct\u201D. The complaints came particularly from the education sector\u2014from the boards of trustees and the principals. They told the select committee that teachers were already subject to two, three, or four sets of codes of conduct, they were not sure how demanding that was, and asked what was meant by the provision that the State Services Commissioner might proceed with another set of standards of integrity and conduct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI must say that I personally have a lot of concern with the State Services Commissioner setting minimum standards of integrity and conduct. I wonder how far it would have stretched, because the present commissioner is one Mr Mark Prebble, and I know that Mr Mark Prebble has quite a lot to say about the dress codes of public servants, including that they should shop at The Warehouse or at Farmers, not wear earrings, etc. I would like to know how far the public service can expect the State Services Commissioner to intrude into the dress code of employees or into the behaviour of individual departments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe other power that this provision is supposed to give to the State Services Commissioner is the ability to review the machinery of government across all areas of government, including the allocation of functions to and between departments and other agencies. On the one hand, it could be scary if the State Services Commissioner is to interfere in each individual department\u2019s functions, thereby causing unnecessary undermining of the department\u2019s head, but on the other hand, one has to question what authority is granted to the State Services Commissioner, when he or she can only review. What happens after he or she reviews? Does the commissioner, once again, report to the relevant Minister? What if the State Services Commissioner reviews and recommends changes to Government departments that concern two Ministers, or even three or four Ministers? Would that review yield any tangible result? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWe also see this provision giving the State Services Commissioner the desirability or need for the creation of new departments and other agencies. Now, this is quite interesting. I wonder whether the State Services Commissioner can do that based on his or her own opinion, or does the State Services Commissioner have to seek guidance from some higher authorities, such as the Ministers, about the creation of new departments and agencies? How can we ensure that the provision does not become a tool that might be used to undermine Governments and agencies that might be proving too difficult to deal with? Of course, the one thing in a positive light that I can think of is that it could be good for the State Services Commissioner to interfere in the current saga of TVNZ, where the Prime Minister is complaining about it exhibiting a culture of extravagance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e89c8292181b4f58a7f75648605ecf0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e89c8292181b4f58a7f75648605ecf0b\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I have to start by saying that I have heard some nonsense in the time that I have been in this Chamber, but this would have to be the worst type of nonsense I have heard thus far. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab9e80dc865142fab915fc52c92d6572\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: Apart from the Civil Union Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022244b6a4b9aac438ab47bda9a9b61cfb1\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Apart from the Civil Union Bill, as some member has called out. Why do we need to legislate for this type of fundamental activity that we would see in any business? This is plain, good old-fashioned human resource management. I have to say to the Minister in the chair, Mr Mallard, and to members, that if I came across a chief executive officer who was not doing this as a matter of course, then I would simply fire that person because he or she would not be worthy of having that job title. This is the sort of thing that we expect would come naturally to any senior executive in any organisation across this nation that we would care to name. Putting this type of stuff into legislation will not change that one iota, and that is a great fallacy. That shows the inexperience of the Minister in the chair, and of some of the Ministers in this Government who think that if they put this sort of stuff into legislation, then it will suddenly happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EWell, let me tell those members that it does not change anything at all. If this is not inherent in one\u2019s make-up as a senior executive, then it will not happen just because it has now been put in writing and is legislated for. What a waste of this Parliament\u2019s time and a waste of taxpayers\u2019 money this is. How many minions are crawling over this part of this bill, putting this sort of stuff in place? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe State Services Commissioner will become a very powerful person if this legislation gets up and running. That is dangerous, because if we read part of what is intended in this bill, he or she can be manipulated by the responsible Minister, and that is a very dangerous principle. The commissioner would surely be intimidated by a member of this current Government, because it is morally corrupt, and we have seen the evidence of that time and time again throughout the course of the last couple of years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe Government is asking members of this Parliament to accept that it is a Government that will set minimum standards of integrity. I look across to the Government benches and see Jim Sutton. He sat in the back of a speeding car, all the way from Waimate up to Christchurch airport, so that the Prime Minister could go and watch a game of rugby\u2014which she does not like, in the first place\u2014simply so that she could be seen to be there. The Prime Minister\u2019s defence was: \u201CI didn\u2019t know how fast I was going, because I was having a conversation with Jim Sutton.\u201D Well, no one can have a conversation with Jim Sutton for more than 5 minutes, let alone 1\u00BD hours, but we are expected to believe that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe great nonsense about this bill is that all those requirements are already in legislation, anyway. This is the law. Let us look at some of the requirements, such as employers have to be good employers and adhere to equal opportunity legislation. Is that to be sure, to be sure? Are we legislating to be sure that the legislation that we have already legislated for will be adhered to? It is already in the law. This is good old-fashioned succession planning. We will legislate to make sure that we know how to get succession into chief executive roles in New Zealand corporations or State services. How pathetic is that? It is the law, but here the Government is repeating it again and again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ELet us look at some of the examples. Clause 40A, \u201CGeneral principles\u201D, proposes to substitute section 56(1) of the State Sector Act with a new section 56(1) that will provide: \u201C(1) The chief executive of a Department must\u2014(a) operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer; \u2026\u201D. I ask the Minister what will be different in future from what is already happening in New Zealand in any business that he could care to name? How will that provision change anything? Well, the Minister should get on his feet and take a call, because it is a very fair question. How will that provision change anything?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u00223ead9bcd27024c2dade5e9c530fdbcb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ead9bcd27024c2dade5e9c530fdbcb7\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00229aeab556606f4a9b99b55ed7be9c7a7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aeab556606f4a9b99b55ed7be9c7a7b\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E I want to ask the Minister to explain just how clause 41, which substitutes a new section 57 of the State Sector Act, will work. Let us establish first of all that, by way of example, Christchurch Polytechnic is a Crown entity\u2014so I do not want to hear from the Minister that this provision is not relevant to it. It is proposed that the new section 57 will provide that: \u201C(1) The Commissioner may set minimum standards of integrity and conduct that are to apply \u2026\u201D, in this case, to Crown entities. Now, it so happens that, as far as I am aware, the State Services Commissioner has not set standards with regard to Crown entities like the Christchurch Polytechnic, but under this legislation he or she can. I want to know from the Minister whether this legislation will compel the commissioner to set standards that would prevent the kind of conflict of interest that arose at Christchurch Polytechnic. If the Minister is not familiar with those circumstances, I can tell him that a senior employee of the polytechnic was able to make substantial private gain by virtue of the way that employee used her public position. Will the standards be high enough to prevent that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe next question is: what happens when someone does not comply? I would imagine that any standard that the State Services Commissioner sets for a polytechnic would prevent senior employees from getting themselves in a position where they could make substantial private gains from their public offices. It should go further than just stating they have to declare an interest. The minimum standard should be that there be no conflict of interest, and not just that a conflict of interest is declared. But if senior employees do not comply with a standard set by the commissioner, what will happen? New section 57B inserted by clause 41 states that if there is a breach of the minimum standard, \u201CThe Commissioner may advise the responsible Minister if, \u2026 a serious breach \u2026 has occurred, or is likely to occur.\u201D That is it\u2014the commissioner advises the responsible Minister. I presume that the real powers are there under new section 57C(1), which refers to the powers in sections 7 to 9 of the principal Act that \u201Cthe Commissioner may exercise in respect of Departments, including the powers in section 25.\u201D Can the Minister just tell us what will happen, apart from the responsible Minister being advised? In the case of Christchurch Polytechnic, senior civil servants, including those in the State Services Commission, knew about the conflict of interest. We know they advised the Minister\u2014because the official papers show this\u2014that an individual holding public office there was a shareholder in a company that had pocketed $6 million of public money, and nothing has happened. Absolutely nothing has happened, either to the individual or to the Crown entity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo the Minister needs to explain to me why it is that even with paraphernalia like that in place\u2014not exactly what this bill provides for, but like it\u2014when there was a clear breach of not only the formal standards but any general understanding of the role of someone in a Crown entity, nothing has happened. The State Services Commissioner, the chief executive of the Ministry of Education, and the Minister have done nothing about the worst breach of any kind of public service standard that I have seen in 20 years. So the Minister needs to tell us why this wet lettuce leaf will make any difference, at all. None of this law will matter if there is no determination on the part of the Government to enforce the standard. In the absence of that determination, this measure is a total waste of time. It is worse than a wet bus ticket, because it gives people the impression that something may happen. They will think they can go somewhere and something will happen\u2014that they can tell someone, and that at least those responsible will get slapped with the bus ticket. But, in fact, without the will to do so nothing can happen. That is why I say the public service is operating in an ethical vacuum right now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThis measure is all rhetoric. It is meaningless and it is hollow, because in the one chance that the Government has had to enforce it, it did not do anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022 data-id=\u00224b3e0e6bc03146d4abde158be920c17d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b3e0e6bc03146d4abde158be920c17d\u0022\u003EHELEN DUNCAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022299bee9a015b4613bfb3e0c78f85a917\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c509702ff686454fab1b8ec579e62d08\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223ef84519809b43e8b66dcddde51394bc\u0022\u003EPart 3  Preliminary provisions relating to Crown entity reform\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022770728288409481f9d11f294ea3e8732\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022770728288409481f9d11f294ea3e8732\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Part 3, which, as members can see includes clause 46, \u201CPurpose of Parts 3 to 7\u201D, refers to Crown entities. The real dilemma in this whole part and in the amendments that are to take place to the Crown entities has a quite simple context, actually. The Government established Crown entities under independent Acts of Parliament and with independent boards, so that those boards could be responsible for the management of those autonomous Crown companies, essentially. The entities were able to be controlled, if one likes, by the Government through the changing of the boards. That was the fundamental process under which Crown entities were established. The risk of this legislation is really as simple as this, I think: if this Government wants to go and start meddling in the Crown entities under its control, what it risks doing through this legislation is going around the independent boards and independent autonomous companies that have been set up, and starting to meddle in their activities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThat creates two dilemmas. The first is that one starts to have Crown entities such as tertiary institutions all of a sudden feeling as though their position of autonomy and academic freedom is jeopardised. So one would have the universities rightfully saying that they are Crown entities\u2014and, as Dr Cullen correctly pointed out, have been so since 1993\u2014but that all of a sudden their independence under the Education Act, which has been so cherished from an academic and a freedom point of view, is being challenged through the alterations to the crown entities legislation. So the first dilemma is that the Crown entities and Crown companies could, in some form or another, be influenced through this crown entities legislation. The second dilemma is one of accountability, and we saw a lot before about that in Part 2 of the bill, which looked at the role of the State sector, in terms of putting leadership and guidance in there. The risk for board members or for the management of Crown companies is simply a situation whereby the Minister goes around the boards and somehow influences Crown entities. Then, when things go wrong\u2014as they surely would\u2014those boards would come back and say a particular action took place not because they wanted it to take place, and not because it happened under their guidance, but because the Minister dictated somehow that it was to take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThere are quite a number of categories of Crown entities\u2014there are now five defined categories\u2014and I want to take a second, if I may, just to talk about the different categories. One of the issues is clearly around the boards of trustees. Quite a lot of submissions were put forward to the Finance and Expenditure Committee around the definition of boards of trustees, and one issue was that they somehow could be either overly responsible or, indeed, liable\u2014it was the issue of liability, as opposed to responsibility. Liability was one issue around their independence and their ability to do things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to also mention, if I may, for a second, some of the other definitions in Part 3, because one definition is quite interesting. It is that of the fees framework, and it is quite pertinent and relevant, I think, to what is taking place at the moment.If I can take a moment of the Committee\u2019s time to read that definition, it states quite simply that the \u201Cfees framework means the framework determined by the Government from time to time for the classification and remuneration of statutory and other bodies in which the Crown has an interest, including statutory entities and their subsidiaries and tertiary education institutions\u201D. What does that mean? Does it mean that when Judy Bailey\u2019s salary is doubled from $400,000 to $800,000 in what is not actually technically speaking a Crown entity but is nevertheless a Government-related activity, that is now at the discretion and under the framework of the Government? If I look at that in relation to tertiary education institutions, and if I read the fees framework correctly\u2014and the Minister may like to take a call to enlighten the Committee on whether I am correct\u2014it looks to me as though the Government will be able to control the remuneration of people working within tertiary education institutions. If it is correct that that is what the fees framework as defined in clause 51 means, I can understand why the vice-chancellors from eight universities in New Zealand, including Raewyn Dalziel who is the acting vice-chancellor of Auckland University, Derek McCormack at the Auckland University of Technology, and Bryan Gould at the University of Waikato\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002261f380ad39594670b152f1ef729b56c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261f380ad39594670b152f1ef729b56c3\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I shall take a brief call on this part, because I think it is appropriate at some stage to remind members of the history of this legislation and to place on the record of the Committee my thanks to the Hon Simon Upton for the work he did in the preparation, organisation, and initial policy work that led to this legislation. It is a way to introduce consistency\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228497fc1fdc4e419c8e662bca43f9ad2a\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: Bound to be deserted by this current Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262ecc50a84b54c9083ce57887bf7ee49\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: The member should not refer to Simon Upton in that way. I think it is most inappropriate. Mr Upton\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec33420e3b0641fbbbe66866c47bde90\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You may not have heard, but I heard my colleague very clearly. She did not comment on Simon Upton at all. She said\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c44db4a22b104428b1b445576bb61ab5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: No, that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225132c5fb75c3473e969eae361f4f0fc6\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: The brief point I shall make is that Mr Upton left a legacy of quite a lot of policy work in this area. We held a debriefing, as good Ministers do. I had an excellent debriefing with Mr Upton; I could not say quite the same about Dr Smith \u201Cjunior\u201D. However, I had a very good debriefing and Mr Upton indicated to me that one of the ways in which he would measure the performance of this Government would be to see whether we had progressed this legislation in roughly the same form. It has been slightly improved. The review of the central part has been helpful, and I am sure that when Mr Upton makes it back to the country and looks at the legislation he will be well pleased.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa5cb8de3e1642c8bd5fe112a1f902f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa5cb8de3e1642c8bd5fe112a1f902f8\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I thought that when the Minister stood to give us an explanation, he might have given us an explanation about the very section in Part 3 that relates particularly to tertiary education institutions and their understanding of past history. Instead, he went right back to the dim, distant past, as far as I could see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI believe that the Minister should also have taken more time and relayed to us why tertiary education institution representatives, particularly members of the Vice-Chancellors Committee, are so upset about what they see as the understandings of the working party that that Minister helped to develop but that they feel in the actual development of Part 3 seem to have been so misconstrued. I take that point, because the title of Part 3 and the suggested amendments begin with the words \u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee exactly what that means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI have been informed, and I know that the select committee was informed, that not only are tertiary institutions concerned about the actual language of these provisions in Part 3 but they are also very concerned about the implications of these provisions being passed in this Parliament, put into practice, and having implications for them following that. As I said earlier, they really feel that there is a shift from the known administrative matters under which universities are working. Instead, this is about a movement to a completely new framework where, in the language here, there is consistency in the way Crown entities operate, in the Government\u2019s operation of Crown entities, and in accountability\u2014all of which, by the way, are matters tertiary institutions feel they do rather well right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EDoes the Minister really want to have responsibility in the comprehensive sense for every tertiary institution? I know that we have heard some discussion here about polytechnics. One can think of the major tertiary institution in this country, the University of Auckland, and the size of the university as it is today, with almost 4,000 staff coping with 33,000 students, and with approximately only 36 percent of its funding coming directly from the Government. Its accountability is in the public domain with regard to what the Government seeks from the university. In relation to research, the work that is done by a leading university such as Auckland University, and others, in all cases has sponsors who demand accountability. Students themselves, increasingly and wisely so, demand accountability today, as well. Donors to universities demand accountability. Why then does the Minister, in the course of his or her year, seek to have the overriding power that is implied in the part before us?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EAgain, I would like the Minister to tell us what \u201CPreliminary\u201D really means. If that had been explained, along with the explanations we have had from the select committee about submissions made by the universities, there may have been another path on the part of the Vice-Chancellors Committee. But at this very point in time and as I speak, the Vice-Chancellors Committee, and in particular representatives of Auckland University, have expressed their extreme concern publicly in the last few days about what Ministers really desire with regard to the autonomy and academic freedom of tertiary institutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002260c66ae7756447329f314ee98d43bddd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260c66ae7756447329f314ee98d43bddd\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I think it is time to shed a little light and a little less heat on Part 3, and in particular on schedule 6B. I look forward to Deborah Coddington taking a call on this part, her having spoken on it when we were debating a previous part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI, too, listened very carefully to the concerns of the tertiary educational institutions\u2014as expressed by Mr Stuart McCutcheon in particular, and also by Mr Robin Mann, whom I see quite often\u2014and I have really struggled to understand what it is that they are concerned about, which is not to say that I am indifferent to their wish to maintain the autonomy and academic freedom of tertiary educational institutions. The Green Party strongly backs the vital role of those institutions as critics and as the conscience of our society. But after some considerable examination we simply cannot see how this bill undermines the autonomy and freedom that those institutions have. Balanced against their desires is the need for the Government to exercise a degree of accountability for any organisation that receives taxpayer funding, and to ensure that there is a degree of transparency as to how that funding is applied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI find it intriguing to hear John Key from the National Party wax lyrical about the constraints that tertiary educational institutions are under, given that they became Crown entities in June 1993. I am sure that the Minister can confirm for me that in June 1993 the National Party was in Government, and, therefore, it was National that added tertiary educational institutions to the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act, and, therefore, it was National that would have done any undermining that Mr Key is now complaining about. It is quite a contradiction on his part to claim that this bill is undermining tertiary educational institutions, when in fact, at the end of the day, particularly because of Supplementary Order Paper 315, this bill maintains the legislative status quo for tertiary educational institutions. Indeed, in schedule 6B they are given a separate category of Crown entity in recognition of their distinctive character and relationship with the Crown. So I will be interested to see whether National members take any more calls to criticise their own behaviour in 1993, because in effect that is what they are doing. They are now admitting they made a mistake back then, and they want to reverse it\u2014or perhaps they are just grandstanding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EWe have before us a bill that has been significantly amended from when it was first introduced. In relation to tertiary educational institutions, particularly because of representations made by the Vice-Chancellors Committee, Supplementary Order Paper 315 makes a significant number of concessions to the tertiary sector by removing from schedule 6B the application of sections 174, 175, 199, 210, and 212. That really does put the situation on a par with the status quo. I know\u2014because the select committee was told\u2014that one of the outstanding matters, the issue of consolidation, is being addressed by the Financial Reporting Standards Board. The tertiary educational institutions agree with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI accept the tertiary sector\u2019s concern, and I am sure I will be lobbied further on this matter, but I believe that, on balance, the status quo is maintained\u2014a status quo that was introduced by the previous National Government. We believe that the Education Act 1989 provides tertiary educational institutions with sufficient protection from Government interference, and that this bill provides the degree of accountability and transparency that Parliament and the Government require.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022e93ec2555d91458aa9ac03d2a6ac1204\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e93ec2555d91458aa9ac03d2a6ac1204\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E Part 3 separates the various entities into five categories. In clause 48(1)(a), under \u201Cstatutory entities\u201D we have types of entities that are known as autonomous Crown entities versus independent Crown entities. Autonomous Crown entities must have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister, whereas independent Crown entities are generally independent of Government policy. I looked at schedule 5 to see what type of entity came under the autonomous category and what type came under the independent category, and I had some questions I want answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI invite the Minister to take a call and explain why the Families Commission is classified under autonomous Crown entities, whereas the Children\u2019s Commissioner is classified under independent Crown entities. I was very relieved to read that the Children\u2019s Commissioner is classified as an independent Crown entity, because that means it is independent of this Labour Government\u2019s direction in policy matters, but it is quite frightening that the Families Commission is classified as an autonomous Crown entity, which means that it has to pay regard to Government policy. We all know what the Labour Government\u2019s definitions of \u201Cfamily\u201D can mean. We were told at one stage, and I am not sure whether it has changed, that gang members can be classified as \u201Cfamily\u201D, or people who are perceived to have an attachment. So the definition of \u201Cfamily\u201D, according to the Labour Government\u2019s vocabulary, is a very strange concept that is nowhere near what the average New Zealander would consider a family to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe Minister should take a call and demonstrate to us that robust analysis has been applied to classifying those various entities into the right category. How can the Families Commission be categorised differently from the Children\u2019s Commissioner? I think that only the Labour Government does not consider that \u201Cfamily\u201D and \u201Cchildren\u201D logically belong in the same category. If it is good enough for the Children\u2019s Commissioner to become an independent Crown entity, but not the Families Commission, does that mean the Government does not have confidence in the Families Commission? On second thoughts, maybe the Labour Government has no confidence that the Families Commission will follow Government policy, in light of the fact that the creation of the Families Commission was a condition of its securing the support of United Future. Maybe my colleagues in United Future will take a call and explain whether they are comfortable that the Families Commission is having to pay respect to the Labour Government\u2019s policy on families. I wonder what type of family it has in mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI point out that the school boards of trustees came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said they were very worried about the level of reporting requirement that might be imposed on these volunteers\u2014on members of school boards of trustees. The officials reassured them that they would not be subject to very onerous requirements in terms of reporting. But then I turn to schedule 6A and 6B\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218044f102d3141b9802ae0c251a69de6\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to Part 3, I want to pick up on a contribution the Minister made a short while ago when he alleged that these reforms were originally the work of the Hon Simon Upton. That is a classic example, I suspect, of political licence\u2014to be kind. Mr Upton may well have been involved in the initial concepts around reform of State sector management, but he surely would not have approved of some of the detailed, prescriptive measures in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI am particularly interested in asking the Minister what he seeks to do. Again, I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the provisions. In particular, I draw the Minister\u2019s attention to clause 51, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, where the definition of \u201Cdirection\u201D states: \u201Cdirection means a direction given by a Minister under this Act\u201D\u2014the Minister should know what this means, because it refers to him\u2014\u201Cor the entity\u2019s Act to an entity\u201D\u2014that is fair enough; OK it might be possible for the Minister to give an entity a direction\u2014\u201Cor to a member or employee or office holder of an entity\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI think the Minister should explain what he seeks to do with this provision. Why would the Minister want to be able to direct an employee of an entity to do something? What is it that the Minister is seeking to achieve there? Because the whole idea of Crown entities is to have them governed by a board, to have them separate from political interference. That is the whole idea. Our tertiary institutions are Crown entities. Are we going to see this Minister able to give an employee of a university a direction to do something? Because it would seem on the face of this bill that that is possible. What is it the Minister wants to do with that definition? Why does it include an employee or office holder? What is it? What is the intent? I think the Committee is owed an explanation about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIf the Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, wants to give a general direction to a Crown entity, that is one thing. It makes me a bit nervous, because the whole idea of Crown entities having their own boards is that it makes them a bit more separate from political interference. But when the definition of \u201Cdirection\u201D goes right down to \u201Cemployee\u201D, what is it the Minister is seeking to do? Why have that wording? Why have that in the bill? I think we are owed an explanation. What is intended with that? It is not unreasonable to request the Minister to explain that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhile I am on clause 51, I will go to the \u201Cfees framework\u201D definition, which states: \u201Cfees framework means the framework determined by the Government from time to time for the classification and remuneration of statutory and other bodies in which the Crown has an interest, including statutory entities and their subsidiaries and tertiary education institutions\u201D. What is it the Minister is seeking to do with that provision? Are we going back to the pre-1990 provision that the Minister\u2019s colleague the Hon Phil Goff would be familiar with, where the Government set fees for tertiary institutions? Why is \u201Ctertiary education institution\u201D specifically included in the definition of \u201Cfees framework\u201D? Are we talking here about going back to the Crown being able to tell tertiary institutions what their fees will be? That went out in the law in the early 1990s, and the tertiary institutions appreciated getting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0dd8f1675b14181840cf6deb1609bc4\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: No, the upper limits were set under your legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2c79c85c0624ec2ac93a2cb3d1b3425\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: There were no upper limits under National\u2019s legislation. The tertiary institutions were free to charge fees. Now, what is it? The Minister should take a call and explain exactly what the Government is trying to do here. It may be OK, but it is not clear. There are two issues under clause 51. One is the issue of directions by the Minister to an employee of a Crown entity, including tertiary institutions, it would appear. That is dangerous. The whole issue of academic freedom is at question here. I think we are owed an explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022 data-id=\u00227f4575b332a64761b5952da757772dc8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f4575b332a64761b5952da757772dc8\u0022\u003EHELEN DUNCAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f080d6832a9c47ad8c60ffc2c6094bea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f080d6832a9c47ad8c60ffc2c6094bea\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I was grateful, in a funny kind of way, to Pansy Wong for waking us up at this hour of the night to talk a little bit about the reference she managed to find in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill to the Families Commission. Then she went on to talk about the fact that she could not quite remember how the family was defined in the Families Commission Act, so I thought I would take a call to refresh her memory of that definition, because it just so happens that I have the definition with me. For Pansy Wong\u2019s information, this is the definition of \u201Cfamily\u201D: \u201Cfamily includes a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption, an extended family, 2 or more persons living together as a family, and a wh\u0101nau or other culturally recognised family group.\u201D So I hope the member might find some time to write down the definition, because she has brought it up several times in the Chamber and she manages to get it completely wrong every time. I thought it would be a good idea to get it on the record once and for all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022861adb4ecc8a40f285e6b34b7a204039\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022861adb4ecc8a40f285e6b34b7a204039\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I find it interesting that United Future thinks it has a monopoly on morals and on what defines a family, and that if two people are living together and are not married\u2014well, it actually makes one want to rush out and sin when one hears speeches like that. Chance would be a fine thing! I want to draw the Committee\u2019s attention to some anomalies in this legislation that Lockwood Smith has already highlighted\u2014that is, the definition of \u201Cdirection\u201D, and the direction given by a Minister to an employee of a Crown entity. If one looks at the definition of Crown entities, one finds under \u201CAutonomous Crown entities\u201D that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is included in the schedules. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra actually comes under the definition of Part 2 of schedule 5, which means that it \u201Cmust have regard to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister\u201D. We have two responsible Ministers here: the Prime Minister and the Hon Judith Tizard. What does this mean when the first violinist, who is an employee of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, is playing \u201Cdead white man\u2019s music\u201D, which the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has publicly said is not Government policy. She said that it is not Government policy that we should be playing \u201Cdead white man\u2019s music\u201D. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra should be playing the music of people like Gareth Farr\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227657ac3b986d42998c4661babc8e9ff1\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Fantastic music.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022328e5232d2cc4480aad79655fa3e2f1e\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: I do not deny that Gareth Farr and some of our New Zealand composers, such as Jack Body, are very good composers, but we have a very dangerous situation when any Government or any Minister can direct what sort of music a symphony orchestra can play, just because we have State funding of the arts. I would like a situation of having a free society where there is totally private funding of the arts. I know that that is not a reality at the moment, so I will not advocate that there should be no State funding of the arts. But there should be a strictly hands-off State funding. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThis is one of the issues this legislation raises. When we have a definition of \u201Cdirection\u201D meaning \u201Ca direction given by a Minister under this Act\u201D to a member\u2014or to an employee, as the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed out\u2014of what can be an autonomous Crown entity that has to have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister, then we start treading in quicksand. We get into swampy ground. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThese are the sorts of things that this legislation should not be concerned with. It brings me back to what the Vice-chancellors Committee is concerned about. It is the principle of the Government\u2019s clammy hands encroaching on all areas of life. Now, I am very sorry that I am keeping the Minister up, but it was his Government\u2019s choice to go into urgency, so he has to endure another hour\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd4762fe5e944a4d98a1000950134d2c\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I haven\u2019t been so bored for a very long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef356d7edf1548199c808f968413faf1\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, it is his Government\u2019s choice to do this. I object to Ministers responsible, like the Prime Minister and Judith Tizard, directing a symphony orchestra, but the Minister should think of the principle. He might enjoy the music that the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister direct that the employees of the Symphony Orchestra should play. He should think about what the implications would be if I were the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and directed that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra should play the music of, say, Diana Krall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u00220af66e1f84c54e52b795b0885d016402\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220af66e1f84c54e52b795b0885d016402\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cdc3dde91fb44026860e8bb88c192e07\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001060\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002243f9a83f590f40be98311f0539927ea6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022422183cc7f8542dda5ff22a5dd7663cc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001061\u0022\u003EPart 4  Establishment and governance of Crown entities\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00224371d3d9818f48ebace8878798a654e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224371d3d9818f48ebace8878798a654e4\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to rise to speak to Part 4 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. If ever this bill was living evidence of some of the drivel that has been written into our legislation, we do not need to go any further than Part 4. If we have a bit of a look through it, we will see some of the absolute nonsense that has been written into legislation and, in particular, into this bill. I draw the Committee\u2019s attention to some of the quite startling findings I made as I flicked through Part 4 earlier. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EHere is an example. Clause 70, \u201CMethod of appointment of members\u201D, lists a long and convoluted series of things that happen when either the responsible Minister or the Governor-General appoints someone. For instance, when the notice is sent out to the responsible member, it has to state the date when the appointment will take place. The member cannot start before he or she gets the letter. The letter has to state how long the person will be a member. That is pretty basic stuff. It is not exactly mind-blowing stuff that needs to be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9271bfc3dcb41b590180b5eb0c382ac\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Do they have to be current members of the Labour Party?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5cb3d888f8145cba49041cf22337a75\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: No, they cannot be a member of Parliament, funnily enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224db6229857314ddd99dfcd0f1238adb0\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Where\u2019s the Minister in the chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9ac54a6ff054f2f95cc18ec91cea434\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. It is nice of the Government to pay attention as we debate this stuff. Then we get to the good bit. Clause 72, \u201CQualifications of members\u201D, states what it takes to be disqualified from being a member. The Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, will be delighted to know that he is disqualified under subclause (2)(e), because he is a member of Parliament\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022749d4cb37b5c474c95b8c74af328907a\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Under paragraph (a)!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d007eb05e234106bd7a4a1c5f4f7781\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Subclause (2)(a) refers to a person who is an undischarged bankrupt. I do not want to go into his personal business! My point is that under subclause (2)(e) he is discharged because he is a member of Parliament\u2014at least until the next election. I want to go through these points. We are not intimidated by them. These are the interesting bits. There are all sorts of reasons under clause 72 why one can be disqualified from being a member of a statutory entity. [Interruption] He may fail on a number of instances. A disqualified person is, for instance, an undischarged bankrupt, a person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or who is concerned with, a company under section 382 of the Companies Act\u2014that subclause goes on and on\u2014a person who is subject to a property rights order, a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more, or a member of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d075ba08d1924209a04e7ee2d7c1f9bd\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: What about heterosexual males from Wainui\u014Dmata?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022458277adac3f4e2d80db956fe5cd923d\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: A heterosexual male from Wainui\u014Dmata? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb7fc748e269462395c6ea5a3ceaf639\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Are there any?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202ac9a2fb89c4fe49ac6347b3eb3f54f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Some are and some are not. [Interruption] That is right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d18029d7db8643648cb2b7583a4e3977\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Roaming the savannah of Wainui\u014Dmata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaefb3ab45c448008b2ae610b9d343da\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: They roam the savannah of Wainui\u014Dmata! But that is not the interesting bit. [Interruption] The Serengeti of the Wainui\u014Dmata! I have not been there for a while, but I am sure it is a great spot at which to holiday at Christmas. That is not the interesting bit. The interesting bit is that those are the qualifications and the things for which one can be discharged. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EClause 76, \u201CValidity of members\u2019 acts\u201D, and clause 77, \u201CValidity of appointments\u201D, are really quite interesting. Clause 76 states: \u201CThe acts of a person as a member, chairperson, or deputy chairperson of a statutory entity are valid even though\u2014(a) a defect existed in the appointment of the person; or (b) the person is or was disqualified from being a member; or (c) the occasion for the person acting, or for his or her appointment, had not arisen or had ended.\u201D In other words, there is a long list of reasons why a person may not be eligible. [Interruption] Mike Williams gets there anyway. Even if one is ineligible and then all of a sudden one wanders along and does something, under clause 76 that is all valid. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EBut the real classic comes when one reads clause 77. The Minister is looking around. I know it is late in the night but he really should pay attention to this stuff, because it really is outstanding legislation and I have absolutely no doubt that it is worth the Committee\u2019s time being here in urgency! This is the best bit. Clause 77(1) states: \u201CThe appointment of a person as a member, chairperson, or deputy chairperson of a statutory entity is not invalid only because a defect existed in the appointment of the person.\u201D In other words\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221ecbfea32e44cb2848ac14053a5a186\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Nobody\u2019s perfect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022025532f2f1a34883afcf25cc825d5001\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that is right, who is perfect, anyway? People can have all the defects, and can totally contradict clause 72, and it does not matter what they do, that will not stop them from getting the job. Everything will be OK anyway. We are here, in urgency, writing down on bits of paper that people cannot become members until they have received the letter and cannot be removed until the notice has been in the Gazette. People cannot be members if they do not comply with all those different things, but if they do become members, they need not worry, because it is all absolutely OK, fine, and hunky-dory. Under this Government they can lie in unison and lie straight in bed at night with absolutely no problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u00227c1fb905c2e2485fa0068999d402a8e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c1fb905c2e2485fa0068999d402a8e4\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and will just comment that I was disappointed in the previous Chair for taking a closure on Part 3 as quickly as he did, because he did not give some of us the opportunity to contribute a second time to that debate. Although Part 3 is short, it is a significant part, and I will briefly take this opportunity to promote my amendment to Part 3; it relates to the list of Crown agents in schedule 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe Government Superannuation Fund Authority took the unusual move of making a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee asking to be reclassified as an autonomous Crown entity. I guess it wants the same status as the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. My amendment certainly gives it the same status, but through the process of shifting the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation from being an autonomous Crown entity to being a Crown agent. In the Green Party\u2019s strong view, if that fund is to continue, then it needs to give effect to Government policy, rather than to have regard for it, as it does now. We have real concerns that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation will rush off and make investments in public-private partnerships that it sees potential profit in but that do not deliver the whole-of-Government outcomes that we believe our taxes should be invested in. That is why it would be preferable for it to become a Crown agent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe other matter that should have been traversed to a much greater degree, given the concern of the tertiary education institutions, is the very clear clause 47B(2), which states categorically that, with the exception of the provisions set out in schedule 6B, \u201C\u2026 Parts 3 to 7 of this Act do not apply to tertiary education institutions and their Crown entity subsidiaries.\u201D I found it extraordinary that Opposition members from National and ACT, having waxed lyrical about how bad this bill is for the autonomy of tertiary education institutions, then proceeded to vote against Supplementary Order Paper 315, which actually removed some of the constraints that the Government was originally going to place on those institutions in the bill. They actually voted against the very thing they were calling for. But, then again, we cannot expect intelligent input from some members on the Opposition side, especially on a night like this when it is the press gallery party and some members are clearly \u201Ctired and\u201D\u2014what is the phrase?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ed5e69d6ca24a35bdab2e6289e607cc\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Spirited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022199021ede53647e5bf619c7bd72b0b4f\u0022\u003EROD DONALD\u003C/span\u003E: I think \u201Ctired and emotional\u201D is actually the point. I move to Part 4 quickly, and say that we offer a very constructive\u2014[Interruption] Some members would like to go to the press gallery party. Well, in approximately 49 minutes they will be able to get back to that party. My colleague Nandor Tanczos has been monitoring the party, and apparently it is still flowing very well\u2014indeed it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ETurning to Part 4, I invite members of the Committee to look at my very constructive amendment to clause 71(2)(b), which is simply to insert the words \u201Cand employee representation\u201D after the words \u201Cpromoting diversity\u201D. If Mr Key is concerned about Part 4 being terribly politically correct, we can make it even more so for him, if he likes, by saying that we think it is in everyone\u2019s interest, but particularly in the interests of those people who work for Crown entities, for there to be an employee representative on the boards of those entities. We are not requiring it; we are making the suggestion in the spirit of clause 71(2)(b), which would then state that \u201C\u2026 in appointing or recommending an appointment, must take into account the desirability of promoting diversity and employee representation \u2026\u201D. That would be a step toward a more cooperative model of governance, which is something the Green Party has long stood for, because we are strong advocates of workers\u2019 cooperatives. In fact, many of us have a business background in workers\u2019 cooperatives, and we believe that those same excellent governance principles that work effectively in the private sector could be adopted in the Crown entities of the public sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2db72fbbe65451889738e198fbb606b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2db72fbbe65451889738e198fbb606b\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to speak very briefly with regard to Part 4. I see that the Minister is smiling, and the only reason I can think of for that is because he is thinking of the Teachers Council, one of the autonomous Crown entities, which at the present time\u2014and, unfortunately, on the very day that most primary schools in the country close for the year\u2014has huge problems. No doubt the Minister is thinking quietly to himself about clause 82, which refers to how the Minister, with as little formality and technicality as possible, is permitted by natural justice and a proper consideration of the matter to bring appointments to the Teachers Council board to an end. If ever a council needed that thorough listing of issues of concern, such as accountability and delivery of service, it is the Teachers Council. The Minister ought to look at that very, very closely, because so many people in front of classrooms in the last term had no training, were not qualified or registered, or were people with limited authority to teach who had not been verified or checked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe situation in a number of schools that I can mention is such that the Teachers Council has no ability whatsoever, on behalf of the Minister and the ministry, to monitor the work of those schools, at all. Secondly, the council does not seem to be able to keep chief executive officers. They have come and gone, so I suggest to the Minister very strongly that the provisions of section 82 need to be put into practice as soon as possible. When this bill is passed, the Teachers Council should be the very first body to be addressed by this clause, and the actions the Minister ought to have taken should be taken under this bill as soon as it becomes law with the Queen\u2019s assent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdd1240d4ab04e359288ae25d10c954d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdd1240d4ab04e359288ae25d10c954d\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E This bill goes from bad, to worse, to the bizarre. As we look at Part 4, we see that it is bizarre. I draw members\u2019 attention to clause 57, which sets out the core things that statutory entities can do. What does it state? It states: \u201CA statutory entity may do anything authorised by this Act or the entity\u2019s Act.\u201D What a stupid clause to put in. Obviously statutory entities cannot do things they are not authorised to do. Clause 58 is: \u201COther things statutory entities can do\u201D. They can do anything \u201Ca natural person\u201D can do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThis is typical of this Labour Government. The legislation it is passing through this Parliament is just junk law. If we look at clause 65, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, we see that the word \u201Cdo\u201D is interpreted, and that its meaning includes: \u201C(a) to do an act;\u201D. I know that one should not bring the Speaker into the debate, but just in passing may I suggest that Mr Speaker Hunt would be horrified at the grammar in this bill. What on earth do we mean by: \u201Cto do an act\u201D? For example, clause 59, \u201CActs must be for purpose of functions\u201D, states: \u201CA statutory entity may do an act \u2026\u201D. For goodness\u2019 sake! What are we coming to in this Parliament when we pass legislation that includes language that is not even English? I do not know what language it is, but \u201Cto do an act\u201D is surely not English. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIt gets even worse than that. I draw to members\u2019 attention clauses 67 and 69. Clause 67 spells out the accountability of members of entities to the responsible Minister. It states that members of entities\u2014I presume that includes individuals and can even include employees\u2014are accountable to the Minister for any directions given to an entity. They are accountable to the Minister, yet if we look at the original clause 69, struck out by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we find that now the Minister is not accountable to this House. Members of Crown entities are accountable to the Minister, but the Minister, in relation to this bill, does not appear to be accountable to this House. I think the Minister should explain to Parliament why that provision was in this part, and why there is no clause requiring him to be accountable to this House when statutory entities or their members have to be accountable to him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI come back in particular to the provisions of clauses 59 and 65, where we get down in law to interpreting the word \u201Cdo\u201D. I imagine that in court we will have problems with that. In courts of law there will be problems because \u201Cdo\u201D has a general meaning in the English language, and if legislation like this one seeks to redefine what \u201Cdo\u201D means, I suspect there will be problems with the law. I think the Minister should explain why on earth it is necessary to interpret what the word \u201Cdo\u201D means in legislation, and why on earth this bill includes the language \u201Cto do an act\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226db9521d695245b49283c236d19591af\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: It sounds sordid, actually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c55dc0bcd734282b750b283821b1ac6\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I do not want to put that kind of unsavoury interpretation on it, but I think that if the Minister expects this Parliament to treat his legislation seriously, he should explain why on earth he is coming along to this Committee with that kind of language in a bill. Clause 59 states: \u201CA statutory entity may do an act \u2026\u201D under various sections \u201C\u2026 only for the purpose of performing its functions.\u201D What on earth is that kind of language in our law for? I think the Minister should explain that. As for spelling out in clause 65, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, what \u201Cdo\u201D includes\u2014it includes, firstly, \u201Cto do an act\u201D\u2014that is just bizarre lawmaking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u002202e6ee9794e84b49864d5947f4b793ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202e6ee9794e84b49864d5947f4b793ff\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E Here we have in clause 71 another example of pointless legislation. If we read the heading of clause 71, it gives us the impression that there are some criteria for appointments or recommendations made by the responsible Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd7a1ae8ebd54e77bc8a222cce7a8bf3\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: What are they?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1733cff612949f58e1252e3ccf32696\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there are not any. When we read through the clause, we see that it states: \u201C(2) A responsible Minister\u2014(a) may only appoint \u2026 a person who, in the responsible Minister\u2019s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience \u2026\u201D. That has not prevented the president of the Labour Party from being appointed to eight different Crown entities with a rumoured salary of about half that of Television One\u2019s favourite newsreader.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022380a161153ab4b06b403cb8276711f02\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: How much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1f758d1fd844b308f90834d6b6fd104\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it is just rumour. I would not want to represent it to the Committee as fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo that part of clause 71 means that there are actually no criteria. I ask the Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, to ask his officials what the criteria are, so that he can advise the Committee. \u201CCriteria\u201D means exclusion. \u201CCriteria\u201D has no meaning unless it excludes some things. I guess that is a matter of the philosophy of logic or something, but, in this clause, it includes everything. So the Minister can get up and tell us who could be excluded from being appointed to any Crown entity by clause 71, which is headed: \u201CCriteria for appointments or recommendations by responsible Minister\u201D. Of course, there is a set of unofficial criteria. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThen the Minister can tell me what clause 71(2)(b) means. Talk about weasel words! Clause 71(2)(b) provides that a responsible Minister: \u201C(b) subject to subsection (1),\u201D\u2014which means he must appoint the people consistent with the criteria, which do not exist\u2014\u201Cin appointing or recommending an appointment, must\u201D\u2014there is strong language\u2014\u201Ctake into account the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of Crown entities.\u201D So it does not state that he must ensure diversity. If it were to do so, at least that particular clause would then have some integrity, because it would be a directive to the Minister, or a requirement in the law, that he must ensure diversity\u2014but it does not say that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo one could breach that clause. It could actually mean something because one might not do it, but the clause states that the Minister must take into account the desirability of promoting diversity. So it is not even the desirability of diversity itself; it is the desirability of promoting diversity. It actually means nothing. How could one ever show that a Minister has not taken into account the desirability of promoting diversity? I desire to promote diversity\u2014absolutely! Who would not? It does not mean that I am compelled to appoint anyone in particular for any reason at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo clause 71 is a complete waste of time. It has no legal effect. I would welcome it if the Minister could get up and tell us. He has four officials here at half past 11 at night. He should go and ask them some questions. What is the legal effect of clause 71? Who does it exclude, and who cannot be appointed? What behaviour of a Minister would amount to a breach of clause 71, and, if there is a breach of that clause, what would happen then? Who will take action against the Minister over the provision that mentions the desirability of promoting diversity? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe old Labour Party used to be just for diversity. It used to ensure it and it used to make one do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f78ac4d43f84508bd2c3c96d1cdfe0d\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: This is the third way!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229744843d20cc4dd8a1be0c18d9172827\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: It is the fourth way, actually. The third way was to promote diversity, and the fourth way is to ensure the desirability of promoting diversity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EOf course, what Labour members do when they get up in front of diverse audiences is say something quite different. If they stood up in front of the M\u0101ori community and said: \u201CThis is the section that guarantees you are going to get appointed to Crown entities.\u201D, the audience would laugh, because they would know it means nothing. What Labour members get up and say is: \u201CWe will make sure absolutely that you are going to get there.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0b0b9c56c1f4931b6dc5c90a06062ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0b0b9c56c1f4931b6dc5c90a06062ef\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I have been somewhat stunned by joining this debate and picking up on the points that have already been made. I am particularly alarmed by clause 71(2). I will carry on with the point made by the Hon Bill English, who touched on the issue\u2014I do not think he made the point firmly enough\u2014that the president of the Labour Party, Mike Williams, is involved in eight State agencies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220732b41477a049428daa2c6c7db4c29a\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: So far!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0ce2a21de774d76a310f8b8aa336cfb\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: So far. I understand they are: rail; historic places, I think; health; Genesis Power, as I recall; and geological and nuclear science\u2014this is an extraordinary man! Who can honestly believe that that fulfils the criteria of clause 71(2)? That clause states that the Minister \u201C(a) may only appoint or recommend a person who, in the responsible Minister\u2019s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to assist the statutory entity to achieve its objective and perform its functions.\u201D Is this man, Mike Williams, the president of the Labour Party, an expert on rail? He may have had a train set as a boy but does that make him an expert on rail? What does he know about historic places? What does he know about health, energy, or geological surveys and nuclear science? The Labour members will be telling us he is a nuclear physicist next!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThis is extraordinary. What it stinks of\u2014because there is a very, very bad odour associated with this\u2014is that the Labour Party wants its full-time president travelling the country, selecting candidates, and always having an excuse to be in Oamaru tonight or Te Awamutu next week, because if one has eight State agencies, one can virtually be anywhere, anytime, sucking into the public purse. That is what it is about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0b0ea5d0694455c90f3b0bef27e488e\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Like Ross Armstrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf625a39978e4bb083e4899853552d1a\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: It does smell a bit like Ross Armstrong, a great friend of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, as the member from Christchurch Mr Donald will remember. That is what this smells of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI recall when we made the major State sector reforms in the late 1980s. In the honourable Labour Government that I was a proud member of, we made a point of transparency. We made a point of not appointing party hacks; we appointed people on merit. I believe that the National Party in Government throughout the 1980s maintained to a lesser standard that same principle. But what we are seeing now is an overt appointment of party hacks and party cronies to high-paid public agencies. We hear in this debate\u2014and I hope that people in New Zealand listening to this debate will appreciate this\u2014that the president of the Labour Party has been appointed by this Labour Government to eight boards! He is chair of some, but he does not have, and no one can sensibly believe that he has, the competence and the abilities that are outlined in clause 71. That is an outrage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe Minister sits there like a maturing cheese. He has not said boo all night. He will not get off his chuff. He will not get up on his hind trotters and explain this appalling legislation. I say to the Minister in the chair that he should wake up, take a call, and answer these serious questions that are being put to him tonight. It is an outrage; this Parliament is offended; the New Zealand public are offended. It is a gross, gross arrogance, and it is just an appalling situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister in the chair, Mr Mallard, to please take a call. He needs to respond to these serious questions. How is it that the president of the Labour Party so far has had eight appointments to those high-paying public bodies? There have been eight appointments, including some of chairman. He could not do justice to them all. I put it to the Minister that it is just a guise and way for this Labour Government to abuse its executive powers in order to pay its party hack, its president, to travel the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8473354c0e94c4ebec5aeb35969d9cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8473354c0e94c4ebec5aeb35969d9cc\u0022\u003EHELEN DUNCAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0f0e1632ed84e6a80f06bf15ea3a1e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0f0e1632ed84e6a80f06bf15ea3a1e8\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I have been waiting very patiently to make a contribution on this part. I want to start by commenting on clauses 57, 58, and 59. My colleague Lockwood Smith touched on this territory, as well. Clause 57, \u201CCore things statutory entities can do\u201D, refers to the fact that an entity may do anything authorised by this legislation or by the entity\u2019s Act. That is fine. I wanted to check to see what that meant, so I turned to clause 58, which tells me the other things that statutory entities can do: \u201CA statutory entity may do anything that a natural person of full age and capacity may do.\u201D That was not terribly clear, so I thought I would take a call and ask the Minister in the chair, Mr Mallard, to get to his feet and explain to the Committee exactly what it means. But I thought that before I did that, I would read on, so I looked at clause 59, \u201CActs must be for purpose of functions\u201D, which states: \u201CA statutory entity may do an act \u2026\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThat is the issue that my colleague Lockwood Smith raised. A natural person is someone who does an act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022159c349e92dc4f079a618a9753875494\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: What is an unnatural person?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0ce3de9cec942e48a502bb869f8d0c0\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: That was the question I was going to pose of the Minister, so let me do that. I ask the Minister what an unnatural person is, and what acts he or she does. [Interruption] That is the natural conclusion, is it not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246629d3683db4a73b08058cdd4bdaabd\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Ask the Minister of Police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a462663268774bf0a959b62d267a2778\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, OK, I will ask the Minister of Police. What is an unnatural person, and what does such a person do? The Minister in the chair does not want to rise to his feet and take a call. But the question remains. A natural person does an act\u2014and we are meant to take this legislation seriously! I turned over the page to look at some of the other clauses, and saw that clauses 61, 62, 63, and 64 go on to deal with natural acts. I am none the wiser as to what those clauses relate to. I ask the Minister to take a call, if he dares\u2014if he can, and if he will\u2014to explain to us exactly what is meant by those clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E I now turn to clause 73, \u201CRequirements before appointment\u201D. Mr Key and Mr English talked about that, and Mr Key used the word \u201Cdrivel\u201D. I can only concur with his analysis. The clause states: \u201CBefore a person is appointed as a member of a statutory entity, the person must\u2014(a) consent in writing to being a member;\u201D\u2014I think that is fair enough\u2014\u201C and (b) certify that he or she is not disqualified from being a member;\u201D. I wonder whether we have got the order wrong. Surely when this legislation was being drafted, the first question that should have been asked was whether a person was qualified or disqualified, before we got the person to write, stating that he or she consented to being a member. The clause goes on to state: \u201C(c) disclose to the responsible Minister the nature and extent (including monetary value, if quantifiable)\u201D\u2014and I am sure Mr Williams would like to tell us what is quantifiable, in terms of his money\u2014\u201Cof all interests that the person has at that time, or is likely to have, in matters relating to the statutory entity.\u201D I thought that was reasonable. Then I read on to subclause (2), which states: \u201CThe board of the entity must notify the responsible Minister of a failure to comply with subsection (1)(c) \u2026\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ESo what we have is a member of a board who may be disqualified, but we find that out only after he or she has consented in writing to becoming a member of the board, and then we find out that once appointed, if a member has not disclosed the fact that he or she has some conflicts of interest, then he or she can no longer be a member of the board. I have been around a bit, but I would have thought that sensible, reasonable practice would have applied, and it would have been ascertained in the first instance whether someone did not qualify to be a member of a board because of some clear disqualification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u002289228fbbf17b4849a491ca30a0bdc9e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289228fbbf17b4849a491ca30a0bdc9e3\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223459cc7950714d55bfe83f194688c3bc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001126\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 71 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001127\u0022\u003Eto insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (2), after the words \u201Cpromoting diversity\u201D, the words \u201Cand employee representation\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228166cd258e4e46d4b98daa268fcbf5f9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001128\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220cf3da7a32eb499980168ba450c5b214\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228d4c67adae0a446abaa7b27af4dfe120\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f4e1929f27d84764a2156bd667c716a4\u0022\u003EPart 5  Operation of Crown entities\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f29eb75191494275b28da8eef268bdb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f29eb75191494275b28da8eef268bdb6\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E We are at the tail end of the Committee stage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc93f570925249389687780de952d95b\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re only halfway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289ebe2d34bbe4cb688986289d0715764\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: OK, we are getting near the tail end of the evening session. I see that we have a new Minister in the chair, the Hon George Hawkins, and I am looking forward to some comments from him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa2d4f2b017d42e597bb005ade61e799\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll be here until Sunday morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229196f4ca30f246dab6b84b9d338ed157\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: We are finishing on Sunday morning\u2014OK. I want to look at clause 148, \u201CPower to direct Crown agents to give effect to government policy\u201D. That is interesting, is it not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a71684327f84888af056feeb811fd72\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s reassuring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211692fd01108426881ef8050e616d8cb\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is very reassuring. There is some flaky Government policy being developed, and we are now going to be able to roll it out to our Crown agents to give effect to that flaky Government policy for whatever we want. So let us take a moment to dwell on what sort of Government policy we might possibly see from this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe have seen all sorts of things from this Government in relation to Government policy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aab74ac6dc8f42bdb4def6a0e7538eed\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Closing the gaps was one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228f910fb77b24dcd9cfc8008a44061db\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Closing the gaps is the first one that comes to mind. That policy was rolled out by the Prime Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9da1856dd4f44548705d0af5fbc21e0\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: A flagship policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c4decc3f8e245d3b6ee38b00c7c9ee4\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It was a flagship policy. We had a situation whereby the Government\u2019s policy was closing the gaps and many Ministers were running to their relevant Crown agents and telling them \u201CThis is the direction we want you to follow.\u201D I wonder at what point, when the polls were not doing too well\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022739a4d8f2d0f4d1f988356f5a7dc34c3\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: The focus groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a580a4a0b9a94f9897918de92ae2246c\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014and when the focus group was making the worm look as if it were about to crash into the earth, the Government said that that particular policy was to be a policy no more and that Ministers had to run out and tell Crown agents that there was to be a U-turn and a new direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThere are many other such Government policies, as well. For example, there was getting back into the top half of the OECD.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b82fe8fc66b94f319d95ec8a1d732fb6\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That was a good one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289a7786beec04dceac4a629e5fd2eee5\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It was a good one. They even had graphs on that one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206ae08ab34784e39b0fa261539b7f697\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Signed by the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5784ccc4dff487c9f20a326288627b4\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, there she was proudly down at the printers standing beside that thing, except that nowadays we are not allowed to talk about that, either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290117e5b0fa94953a16557b084f994b4\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: There was the change in the speeding policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c32071ed538f40819451ff85d83fb96e\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. So it is moderately interesting that there is that power, under clause 148 in Part 5 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, to direct Crown agents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt is very interesting that under clause 149 the same powers exist to direct autonomous Crown entities to have regard to Government policy. I do not want to spend the whole of my 5 minutes debating the failed Government policies of this Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225995eeb1c0be47e4b1b1803afac8c5b2\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Go on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb2759aed7f64a56a17a59c5ca4d859b\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I could do, but I do not want to rub salt into the wound. The Minister looks a bit tired. He has suddenly realised\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4bb94570ece4a5a8d662024b44f85ac\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s grumpy these days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265bc97a551d543459de4a0a3e5c7d5fa\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: He is a little grumpy. He used to be a lot of fun when I first came here. He was good when I first came here, and he would not have brought in a 500-page doorstop like this then. But no problems\u2014that is fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EClause 149 is entitled: \u201CPower to direct autonomous Crown entities to have regard to government policy\u201D. The good bit comes, as it always does, when one reads on in this bill. It is really interesting; it is a bit like a fairytale. When we get to clause 150 we see that, lo and behold, Ministers have no power to direct independent Crown entities or Crown entity companies on Government policy. So the rules are that under clause 148 a responsible Minister may direct a Crown agent, and under clause 149 a responsible Minister may direct an autonomous Crown entity. But, lo and behold, under clause 150 a responsible Minister may not direct an independent Crown entity. So what is the difference between an autonomous Crown entity and an independent Crown entity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f9157452d2846dc955b47e3b3d5a3fb\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Ask Christine Rankin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4529484c0c7482e8e3c10e34788c9df\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7d2ac72085043339feae862b50d5307\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: They can ignore Government policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0a02c4ccefa48f584c867c1ca838bb7\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: They can ignore Government policy. I ask out of interest exactly at what point something is Government policy, because it is clearly not necessarily Government policy if the Government is still talking about it. We know for a fact that a lot of things Government members talked about are no longer Government policy\u2014for example, getting back into the top half of the OECD\u2014so clauses 148 and 149 are very interesting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI now want to refer to clause 156, \u201CEmployment of chief executive\u201D, which states: \u201C(1) A statutory entity must not agree to the terms and conditions of employment for a chief executive \u2026 without\u2014(a) consulting the State Services Commissioner; and (b) \u2026 the responsible Minister.\u201D That is an interesting provision. I actually agree with that clause and I am not arguing that it should not be there, but my point is simply that when a chief executive makes a hash of something in a Crown entity, I do not want to come down to the Chamber and have the Minister tell us that he or she is not responsible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u00220d408c7799c24d6da32ab2a998317642\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d408c7799c24d6da32ab2a998317642\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to go back to a provision that I am developing a lot of anxiety about. I am referring to clause 157(2), which is to direct the Crown entity to be a good employer. Apparently to be a good employer it has to operate a personnel policy, and that policy has to recognise the aims and aspirations of M\u0101ori and their employment requirements. I do not have too much problem with the clause up to that point, but clause 157(2)(d)(iii) refers to the need for the involvement of M\u0101ori as employees of the entity. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, should take a call and say whether the employment of M\u0101ori staff does not naturally mean they are employees of that entity. It is a very strange provision that states that after M\u0101ori staff are employed they are required to be treated as employees of the entity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EOf course, it gets even more interesting. For me, coming from an Asian background, I looked to see whether the Minister or the chief executive would make sure that other ethnic minorities would also be involved as employees. Apparently not. All that clause 157(2) states is: \u201C(d) recognition of\u2014(i) the aims and aspirations of M\u0101ori; and (ii) the employment requirements of M\u0101ori;\u201D\u2014whatever they are\u2014\u201C\u2026 and (f) \u2026 the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups;\u201D. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain to us whether that provision means that a chief executive would be labelled as a good employer if he or she were somehow to employ ethnic minority staff without involving those staff as employees. One has to scratch one\u2019s head and ask what that is all about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to women, the provision simply refers to the recognition of the employment requirements of women. So somehow a good employer does not have to recognise the aims and aspirations of women, but just their employment requirements. That is all very strange.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe Minister should take a call and say what the different requirements mean for those chief executives. I think that the chief executives of some Crown entities might find it difficult to make that distinction. I presume that if they employ European males then they do not have to pay attention to the aims, aspirations, and employment requirements of those males, or involve them as employees. It is all very, very strange, so clause 157, \u201CCrown entity to be good employer\u201D, needs a lot of explanation before people like myself in the future can conduct financial reviews of Crown entities and ask them to explain themselves when they may not be aware of those specific requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EClause 174(1) states: The board of a Crown entity must supply to its responsible Minister any information relating to the operations and performance of the Crown entity that the Minister requests.\u201D I thought that that sounded pretty fair. However, clause 175(1) states that there are exceptions when the Crown entity can withhold information on the grounds that it is necessary to protect the privacy of a person or that it will limit the ability of the Crown entity or its members, etc., \u201C(b)\u2026 to act judicially or to carry out the statutorily independent functions of the entity,\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI think the Minister should take a call. I am not sure whether that provision is helpful to him. After all, if we refer back to Part 4\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022566d50cdcce34ca3802993360a5fcf28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022566d50cdcce34ca3802993360a5fcf28\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take up exactly where my very good colleague Pansy Wong left off. Clause 157, \u201CCrown entity to be good employer\u201D, in Part 5 is blatantly racist legislation. I want the Minister to explain to this Committee why he expects us to pass racist legislation like that. It is an insult to M\u0101ori. I am speaking specifically with respect to clause 157(2)(d). What on earth is it about being a good employer that requires a Crown entity to recognise the aims and aspirations of only M\u0101ori? What about people of Pacific origin, and people of other ethnic backgrounds? Why does this law require a Crown entity, in order to be a good employer, to recognise the aims and aspirations of only M\u0101ori? That is blatant racism. I expect the Minister to explain that clause, because I suggest that it is offensive to M\u0101ori as well as to anyone else. Does the Minister think M\u0101ori are pathetic? What does the Minister want with regard to that clause? I think this Committee deserves an explanation, because that clause can only be described as racist legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EClause 157 mentions no group of people other than M\u0101ori. Why should the aims and aspirations of Pacific New Zealanders not be relevant? Why should the aims and aspirations of people of European descent in New Zealand not be relevant to a Crown entity being a good employer? Why are only M\u0101ori referred to? I thought the Prime Minister had made the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, responsible for dealing with this kind of racist legislation, yet he has brought to this Chamber legislation that perpetuates racism in our law. That is disgraceful. Why is it that in order to be a good employer, under clause 157(2)(d)(iii) Crown entities have to consider only \u201Cthe need for involvement of M\u0101ori as employees\u201D? Why do they have to consider only that? What about other New Zealanders and their need for involvement as employees? What would occur if a Crown entity were involved in other issues around, for example, Pacific Island New Zealanders? Some Crown entities may be involved in such specific issues. But, no, they will have to consider the aims and aspirations of M\u0101ori, and the need for involvement of M\u0101ori as employees. This Committee deserves an explanation of that, because we should not be asked to pass such blatantly racist legislation without explanation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI also want to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to clause 165. I think we deserve an explanation of what the hell it means. Clause 165, \u201CSaving of judicial protections from liability\u201D, states: \u201CA Judge who is appointed as a member of a statutory entity has the same immunities and limitations or other protections from liability when acting as a member of that entity as he or she would have as a Judge.\u201D Now, if the Minister appoints a judge to any old Crown entity, why should that judge have the same protections that he or she has when acting as a judge in a specific judicial role, when the appointment to the Crown entity may not be in a judicial role? In fact, I can think of plenty of judges who have been appointed to Crown entities where they are not acting in a judicial role. Why should those judges have the same protection as they have when they are performing a judicial role? I think that should be explained to the Parliament, if the Minister expects us to support this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EEven though it is close to 5 minutes to midnight, the Committee does deserve an explanation, because this is important legislation. It affects the entire Crown entity sector. Here we have, in clause 157, blatantly racist legislation. I also think we need to be given an explanation as to what the Minister is seeking to do under clause 165 by providing to those members of the judiciary who are appointed to Crown entities the protections that they have when acting as judges. I am prepared to take my seat so that the Minister can answer before we rise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022614073a35fd14779bdee25d2a79fcf28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022614073a35fd14779bdee25d2a79fcf28\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I take the call on Part 5 of this doorstop of a piece of legislation. I want to help out my colleague Mr Key. He asked a very good question of the Minister. The question was: when can a Minister give direction to a Crown entity? It appeared from my reading of Part 5 that there were contradictions in the legislation, so I thought I would help my colleague out. I went to page 166 and looked at the definitions of statutory entities, Crown entities, and Crown entity subsidiaries. I thought that if I cleared this matter up for my colleague, he might go to bed tonight with a smile on his face, because I knew it would keep him awake otherwise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EIf we look at the definition of \u201CStatutory entities\u201D we see there are three different types. The first is a Crown agent. I say to Mr Key that the subtle difference here is that Crown agents \u201Cmust give effect to government policy\u201D, autonomous Crown entities \u201Cmust have regard\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022533197728df54a00b3c279b18f8fdf81\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the difference?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263574c4163c14ed9bb2a00fc5ccd4081\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: The member should save his questions. Independent Crown entities \u201Care generally independent of government policy\u201D. So there is the distinction. The independent Crown entities \u201Care generally independent\u201D, the autonomous Crown entities \u201Cmust have regard to government policy\u201D, and the Crown agents \u201Cmust give effect to government policy\u201D. I wonder whether that has cleared the question up for Mr Key.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022508f89ef151b41d68583b890f74ed97b\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226991942677524598abcf17b53575d178\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I do not know how to explain it more clearly, because I have read the explanation from the bill itself. What I suggest we do now is ask the Minister, who is the architect of this legislation, to get to his feet and enlighten the Committee, at 3 minutes to 12 on Wednesday\u2014no, it is Tuesday the 14th\u2014so we can all go down to the press gallery party, have a drink, and relax in the knowledge that this issue has been cleared up and my colleague Mr Key can sleep well tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EBefore the Minister does take that call, I also want to ask him to answer the question as to the difference between the entities whose definitions I have just read out and Crown entity companies. This is particularly important as to when a Minister can give direction to a Crown entity. I will pause and let the Minister take that call. Will the Minister enlighten us? No, I see that he will not. I will direct members, then, to look at clause 157, \u201CCrown entity to be a good employer\u201D. This bill, because it contains a whole lot of repetitious, arrant nonsense, is so heavy that it is no wonder a strong man like me can hardly lift it. We dealt with the nonsense\u2014the nonsense I am about to talk about again in clause 157\u2014when we debated Part 3. This clause deals with exactly the same issues we dealt with then. It states that a Crown entity must be a good employer. Well, hello, that is news to us! A Crown entity must be a good employer, and it must operate a personnel policy. Now, that is earth-shattering news. I am sure the Minister could not wait to draft that line and get it into legislation. Then we get to the issue that my colleague\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb69237611e24e859356f17fc51f2415\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s no Minister in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee8fda9ffb2347ee89bdeb251988cb9f\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: No Minister in the chair! I thought he was on his feet to take a call. I ask members whether the Minister was on his feet to take a call and answer my questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4543fb25fda482ba0c776291aa49239\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: When the member sits down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ef5cc6ad12d4807bff0697d5a34747a\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: No, don\u2019t sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bce6c8dea098460eb6a5e33d1740dc6a\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: No, I was not going to\u2014not until the bell rang, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200412148f70c07908554220bfa972e46d87de98001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022269091ca212a4174baee509b8de709b9\u0022\u003ETuesday, 14 December 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022060d322ef6a74530923bab9229ab9125\u0022\u003E(continued on Thursday, 16 December 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022590fdb7cdd7a414c8821ce4ad4d96e16\u0022\u003E Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c8edfa10d0749eea916b1f5dccfbd12\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eadf26f2046e4dceb253325667c45f29\u0022\u003EPart 5  Operation of Crown entities (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00221e1855bd298d4f14b8cb69d6144f4952\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e1855bd298d4f14b8cb69d6144f4952\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E Good morning! It is nice to be back here in the Chamber, digging in for another 3 or 4 days of hard yacker until Monday, at least\u2014and that is exactly what the conservatives intend to do. Last night when I was taking a call, I talked about clause 157, \u201CCrown entity to be good employer\u201D. I looked at subclause (2)(g), which provides for \u201Crecognition of the employment requirements of women;\u201D and I had to think of Judy Bailey. Now, there is a Crown entity that is an outstanding employer for women\u2014Television New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002293cc7ba953f940528af43eebf750a4f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293cc7ba953f940528af43eebf750a4f5\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E It is also a pleasure for me to be back after a spirited night last night. I would like to offer Mr Connell some even more PC amendments to this part, and in particular to clause 157, because I do not think that the Crown is being a good employer. It is falling down particularly in relation to pay equity, and I intend, on behalf of the Green Party, to put forward an amendment to fix that particular problem. If members care to look at clause 157(2), they will see that it currently states that: \u201C\u2026 a good employer \u2026 operates a personnel policy \u2026 including provisions requiring\u2014 \u2026 (b) an equal employment opportunities programme;\u201D. In our view, that does not go far enough. We want the Government to have a pay and employment equity programme, and in case members are in any doubt about what that means, our proposed amendment to clause 157 provides for \u201Ca programme that is aimed at the identification and elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect of the employment and remuneration of any persons or group of persons.\u201D That is something that should be incorporated into this bill, because the public service should be a leader in pay equity, for a start. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, to the embarrassment of the Government, not only does the public service fail to be a leader but the gender pay gap is wider in the public sector than in the private sector. One reason for that is that the public sector employs comparatively more women than the private sector, but that is not an excuse. It is time that this Government faced up to the need for a proper pay equity programme, and it is time that it put some money where its mouth is. Senior people in the Government often talk about the need for pay equity\u2014the need for women to earn the same as men for either work that is the same or work that is different but of equal value. I say to members on the Government benches\u2014particularly to those members of the Government with a union background, such as Lynne Pillay and others\u2014 that this is their opportunity to show that they are committed to pay equity and that they do recognise that women still earn only 80c for every dollar that men earn, despite improving their educational attainment. So let us deal with the structural discrimination that exists in the labour market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe Government, of course, acknowledges that we have a problem. It is not even as though we have to convince the Government that there is a problem. It has been doing something about it. Its usual strategy is, of course, to set up a task force, so it did that. The Government had one of those in 2003, and since then it has established a unit within the Department of Labour to look at the pay equity issue and to find ways forward. Well, let us actually implement some changes. Yes, pay equity is a complex issue, but there has been sufficient work done for the Government to proceed to put pen to paper, and to legislate for pay equity. It should take the first step today by supporting the Green Party amendment to clause 157, so that a pay and employment equity programme becomes part of what is expected of a good employer. It is all there in the task force\u2019s report; it stated what needs to be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ELet us face a few facts and look at why pay equity needs to happen. At the moment there is the classic example of nurses and sworn police officers. A nurse\u2019s starting salary is approximately $30,000 a year, while police start at approximately $40,000. At the top of the scale, nurses are paid just over $40,000, while police earn $60,000. That is simply unacceptable. The Government knows that, and it should be doing something about it. But pay equity is not just about men and women. There are significant differences in pay between different ethnic groups. The average hourly earnings for P\u0101keh\u0101 men was $19.88 in the year to June 2003, while for European women it was $16.96, for M\u0101ori men it was $16.29, for M\u0101ori women it was $14.53, for Pacific Island men, it was $13.90, and Pacific Island women earned the lowest hourly rate of $13.79. That is unacceptable for a Labour-led Government\u2014one that claims it is committed to helping people who are poor or disadvantaged in the community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe Government has the opportunity today to fix that problem. It can become a leader and fix the problem in the public service, where the average salary was $43,163 for women and $52,436 for men.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022a87bacc00c83485d91225e21d48c8d27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a87bacc00c83485d91225e21d48c8d27\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to carry on with what Rod Donald was speaking about, and with what Lockwood Smith was speaking about just before midnight last night, when we adjourned for the evening. That was clause 157(2). We will not be voting for the amendment that Mr Donald has put forward. He may take another call and explain it further, but he has not satisfactorily given a good reason to justify pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d3ffba0ba7b4679b30f4d6e395c5f31\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Cut your salary by 20 percent!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a140ee6737c4ed4adc27f6a36a56205\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: That is the point. People who advocate equality for all\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6d60fcb33e4492dad90b209b848327d\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Equity!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212e58c66f6ce435d8db6a2239751779c\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014equity for all want to drag the top people down to the bottom. They do not want to encourage people at the bottom of the heap to aspire to get to the top; they just want to drag everyone down to the bottom. Pay equity to someone who argues like that would mean taking Judy Bailey\u2019s salary down to the lowest salary level paid at TVNZ. That is what pay equity means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269336b3b35814c9da3c25a96f71b28ec\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Bollocks!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2aaf51f689643f1878617c8df472fab\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that was a very intelligent reaction from someone who probably should know better than that. However, Rod Donald talked about the value of those people, but I ask to whom they are of value. How can one person say that the value of a nurse is exactly the same as the value of a police officer? I absolutely, totally agree that nurses need to be paid more, but it is nothing to do with the inequity of the pay scales that leads to there being low-paid nurses. It is to do with unionisation and the one-size-fits-all approach of the union, and it is the same with the teachers\u2019 pay scale. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere are other issues in clause 157(2). It starts off OK. It provides that: \u201C \u2026 a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment,\u201D. But it then goes further, and directs the public service in various areas. That always starts in the public service, but then it moves into the private sector, and the private sector is required to follow those requirements, too. Clause 157(2) provides that there is to be: \u201C(d) recognition of\u2014(i) the aims and aspirations of M\u0101ori; and (ii) the employment requirements of M\u0101ori; and (iii) the need for involvement of M\u0101ori as employees of the entity;\u201D. Apart from being race-based legislation, that provision is totally meaningless. What on earth is in the heads and hearts of M\u0101ori that is different from the aims and aspirations, the employment requirements, and the need for involvement of any person of a different culture or different ethnic background from M\u0101ori? That is insulting to M\u0101ori. It sets them out as being not quite as good as everybody else; therefore, they need to be targeted for special assistance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EBut even more insulting is clause 157(2)(g), which provides for \u201Crecognition of the employment requirements of women;\u201D. What are the employment requirements of women? Which women does the provision refer to? Is it all women, individual women, large women, small women, white women, or brown women? We cannot collectivise a group of people like that without it being an \u201C-ist\u201D. This is sexist and racist legislation. It insults women, M\u0101ori, and ethnic minority groups, which are also mentioned in the clause. This legislation is being promoted and driven by the Minister who is meant to be ferreting out all that sort of drivel in legislation\u2014the whole ethnic filter that is creeping into legislation. This is an example of the Government paying lip service only to that. After the \u014Crewa speech, the Government came out grandly and said there would be no more race-based legislation, yet here it is written large in clause 157(2). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI go back to the pay equity issue and the issue that people should be paid the same amount for work that is the same, or for work that is different but of equal value.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c92ff3f9f4d648bbab34ed9e0fe9cca5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c92ff3f9f4d648bbab34ed9e0fe9cca5\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9df0bb343de4d23b55dae10afaf13e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9df0bb343de4d23b55dae10afaf13e9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I also want to talk about clause 157 in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I am astounded to come into the Chamber today to find that a clause such as this is even in legislation: a Crown entity is to be a good employer. That sort of legislation would not have been required until this Labour Government came to power. I want the Committee to remember the treatment that Helen Clark gave to one State employee, Kit Richards. Kit Richards was a valuable member of Timberlands, but because he disagreed with the Prime Minister she drove him out of his job. She hounded that man. Now that incident has been quietly forgotten, and into the legislation we are putting this sort of politically correct clause requiring a Crown entity to be a good employer. I just hope Helen Clark herself takes note of this clause. In future, when another person like Kit Richards has the audacity to disagree with the Prime Minister, we will see what sort of treatment he or she gets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIt reminds me of the debate that is going on in the newspapers now about one Judy Bailey; it is on the front page of the Dominion Post for the second day in a row. Here is a person who is negotiating with her employers, and now Helen Clark has decided that that salary is something that she has the right to set, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIf I refer back to clause 157, I want particularly to look at subclause (2). The subclause states that for the purposes of this section a good employer is one who \u201Coperates a personnel policy\u201D, moving down to paragraph (d), that requires: \u201Crecognition of\u2014(i) the aims and aspirations of M\u0101ori; and (ii) the employment requirements of M\u0101ori; and (iii) the need for involvement of M\u0101ori as employees of the entity;\u201D. Are not Mr Mallard and the Prime Minister on record as saying they have engaged in a process to get rid of race-based legislation, and to base Government policy on need? That is what they say they will do, yet today what we see in the detail of this bill is absolutely the opposite. I do not recall any legislation that is as specifically race-based as clause 157(2), which states categorically that for a Crown entity to be a good employer, it must develop a policy recognising the aims and the aspirations of M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EHow can that not be race-based legislation? I want the next Labour speaker to deny that that is the case. No Labour member will be able to do that. The Prime Minister is so busy spinning the message about the need for equal citizenship, yet her Government is quietly, back in Parliament and under urgency, forcing through a huge bill that specifically requires a Crown entity to establish race-based employment policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI say to Phillip Field that that is absolutely wrong. That is wrong on two counts. First, it is condescending to, and demeaning of, M\u0101ori. Why do they need a clause such as this? They can get on in this world like the rest of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c8ae341b51a4717a2aec0e4e5dd7745\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Labour thinks M\u0101ori are inferior.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227481760351fc4a8195d73b713a0a7c9c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Labour feels that they are inferior, so it punches through legislation such as this that just demeans M\u0101ori. I ask Phillip Field, who is going to take the next call and make an attempt to answer this, to explain to the Committee today why we have to put this sort of wording into legislation. The answer is we do not have to. The answer is we should not have to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022288d656a932646a3a610196a7ff1827b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022288d656a932646a3a610196a7ff1827b\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c81517728fe7474aa204855faebf9078\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c81517728fe7474aa204855faebf9078\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I listened with interest last night as I left the Chamber just before midnight, and heard quite an impassioned comment about the very subclauses that have just been referred to by the last speaker\u2014namely those in clause 157. I went home after midnight somewhat confused by the trend and the tone of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u2019s comments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI am even more confused by the Hon David Carter. As an employer in the State service as a school principal who employed many teachers and other staff throughout the late 1990s, I recall such aspirations as these being quite clearly set out in the then Government\u2019s requirements. I also can recall a very impassioned debate with an education consultant about why the Treaty of Waitangi obligations were being fostered upon the education service by the National administration of the 1990s. All that I can say, very briefly, is that what I see here is a watered-down version of what I saw the last Government enshrine in day-to-day requirements of employers in the State service throughout the 1990s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759943a6015a42c88bb3a4732fa06b33\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224be14cfc10864e289a83e36601902a29\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The call of \u201CRubbish!\u201D could be answered by documentary evidence of exactly that. This measure to me personally is demeaning. It need not be there. But all that I see in that clause is a watered-down version of a far stronger obligation that was imposed by the last Government upon the State services throughout the 1990s. So let it rest where it belongs. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith knows exactly what I am talking about. As a Minister of Education he set in train such obligations and burdens, and he knows that. It was because of his impassioned call last night that I decided reluctantly to get up and say that National was not only the godfather, the grandfather, and the grandmother of these clauses but enshrined them, bill by bill, Act by Act, throughout the 1990s. For those members to attempt now to come to the Committee with very pure and clean white hands is just not on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a4a99a7-292a-4829-ade5-e825f9be4940\u0022 data-id=\u00226faee817e751469f9c7fb315088cdd55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a4a99a7-292a-4829-ade5-e825f9be4940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226faee817e751469f9c7fb315088cdd55\u0022\u003EHon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9e1e7070aac4b80bb017388af7216ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9e1e7070aac4b80bb017388af7216ed\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E We are debating Part 5 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, and I want to draw the Committee\u2019s attention to clause 148, \u201CPower to direct Crown agents to give effect to government policy\u201D. This is where Helen Clark picks up the phone, rings Bill Ralston, and says: \u201CI think Judy Bailey should be getting $800,000 a year.\u201D And what happens? It is in the headlines the day after. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThis is an interesting clause. I do not know whether the Minister is able to tell us whether it is new or whether it has been in legislation for some time. If it has been in legislation for some time, then electricity consumers in this country would have to wonder why their power bills over this past winter were so big. The State still owns 85 percent of the electricity industry. The State returns enormous profits to the Government coffers\u2014all those electricity bills helping to build up the almost $7 billion surplus that the Government currently says is so small it is unable to give any relief to taxpayers. That surplus comes from things like big electricity bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThen, of course, is the issue we have seen in the last couple of days, where the Government has decided to apply a new tax to oil and other fossil fuels so we can have a guaranteed supply. I would have thought that the Minister, when he was alerted in October 2002 that New Zealand was facing a crisis in its oil supply\u2014in other words, our 90-day stocks were well below that level at that time, and continued to be all of that time\u2014might have said to the bodies responsible: \u201CLet\u2019s get ourselves involved here.\u201D, and the ministry could have been directed to ensure that that level of supply was available to the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EBut this Government is absolutely terrified of the bureaucracy. It knows that the last remaining strong union in this country is to be found in the State sector. So a clause like this one, clause 148, is put into the legislation, and we know it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. The Labour Government enacting this legislation will not pick up the phone to tell Mr Ralston to cut the pay rate afforded the country\u2019s most highly paid newsreader. It will not say to electricity companies: \u201CCalm it down fellas, calm it down. The people out there who actually own you would like to have a better deal during the winter months.\u201D And they will not go to the Ministry of Energy and say: \u201CGet us a 90-day supply, and make sure it\u2019s maintained.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI want to know from the Minister whether this is new, and whether we can expect a lot more Government direction on these matters in the future. I say quickly that the National Party would not operate in that way. We would not want to see taxpayers sold the idea that a television company was of such importance that it had to operate under a charter, but then had to maintain its commercial position to such an extent that it had to lead the market in the salaries it pays to its people. We would also want to ask what the point is of the Government having such a huge stake in the electricity industry if New Zealanders have to go cold because they do not have deep enough pockets to pay the bills electricity companies render. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThis bill is very, very interesting, and Part 5 seems to be the most important part of it. In fact, I believe that after this we will begin the debate on the schedules, or are the schedules being taken as we go through?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268c011d0831f431d9132e2c119c95e18\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s Part 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8bbb7b8f11d431282c3cf418329c3d9\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry. We will be back on Monday for Part 6, and I hope I can take call on that part. I know that this legislation is so important that we are having to do it under the cloak of urgency. By the way, the Government has had this bill on the Order Paper for\u2014how long?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238c25eda7e194f5d87a45bc0c0c42f21\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: 11 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d62ce452111c4e549e003b7e6b9b165a\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: This bill has been on the Order Paper for 11 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u0022af9364cb0036401eb9723b8e543aa29c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af9364cb0036401eb9723b8e543aa29c\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E Two questions leap to mind while we are discussing Part 5. The first unanswered question is, what does the United Future party think of Part 5? The reason I ask that question is that that party supported the urgency motion that had us here until midnight last night, will have us here till midnight tonight, tomorrow night, until midnight Saturday night, and we will be back on Tuesday\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe390722aff442a683ed2eaa3f4cc89f\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Monday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4cdd69416034336a03bba649a977f40\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: We will be back on Monday as well. I probably will not leave. Senior whips do not leave. I will not leave. United Future has a responsibility to have its representative in this Parliament rise to his feet to explain to this Chamber why it is\u2014at least Rod Donald has the decency to rise to his feet to make a contribution during the course of this debate. We may not agree with him. He supports urgency. We certainly do not agree with that. However, United Future sits there dumbstruck, is trampled over, and refuses to make a contribution on Part 5, and more particularly on the crucial clause 148. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI tell members who are present in the House this morning that I cannot wait\u2014and I know that Clayton Cosgrove cannot either\u2014to get on the platform with United Future candidates before the general election later this year. National members will have great fun with them. That party, which proclaims a principled and reasonable approach to politics, puts up an amendment to reduce tax paid by New Zealanders and then votes for a bill that does exactly the opposite. It could have pulled the Civil Union Bill from the clutches of the Government, but sat on its hands and did nothing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EThis morning a bill comes before the Committee whereby a clause is included to give the Government direct power over Crown agencies to affect Government policy, and what does the United Future party do? It sits on its hands and makes no contribution to this debate at all. If a party supports the Labour Government on matters of confidence and supply, Mr Copeland should rise to his feet to justify to this Parliament and to New Zealand why the United Future party supports this House sitting under urgency and is supporting legislation, particularly Part 5, that will do nothing more than centre in Helen Clark\u2019s hands even more power to direct the bureaucracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EDavid Cunliffe, who, let us face it, is very disappointed about Monday\u2019s announcement, sits there and says nothing. He does not take any calls. He could end up with the customs portfolio, but it is unlikely. He should get on his feet to answer some of those questions. As a graduate of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard he should reassure the Parliament and the country that this will not affect the way in which neutral independent democracy works. We know what will happen if one becomes a close personal friend of the Prime Minister when one is in the bureaucracy. Just ask Ross Armstrong what happens if the Prime Minister\u2019s directions are not followed when one is in the bureaucracy. What happens is that one is hung out to dry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EMembers should wait until later this morning when the TVNZ board\u2014this is my prediction\u2014will be hung out to dry over the Judy Bailey fiasco. This is what happens, and officials in this Parliament should be worried. When one gets too close to the Government, as one will under clause 148, bureaucrats, officials, members on boards of Crown agencies and State-owned enterprises, will be hung out to dry with whatever political expediency Helen Clark believes is necessary to pursue her own narrow-minded agenda. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EThat should be worrying for what historically has been a proud and independent public service in New Zealand. That should be worrying for those who have been independently appointed to boards of State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies throughout New Zealand. The Tertiary Education Commission is a classic example. The Government cannot help but get its fingers on every little board, agency, and now deep into the bureaucracy of New Zealand, because it simply is a group of people who are total and complete control freaks. That is the only way to describe it. What happened? United Future let it happen week after week after week in this Parliament, and with important legislation like this, refused to take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u00225be74a9f354c410b8f64b5dffa7b052f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225be74a9f354c410b8f64b5dffa7b052f\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ad7194afae174518bbbaf70403f227f7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000056\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 157 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000057\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (b) of subclause (2) and substitute the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000058\u0022\u003E(b)\tA pay and employment equity programme.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022217c0e43911b4b1d88528eb7dc41c135\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000059\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 157 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000060\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (3) and substitute the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000061\u0022\u003E(3)\tFor the purpose of this section, a pay and employment equity programme means a programme that is aimed at the identification and elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect of the employment and remuneration of any persons or group of persons.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ff5647f867eb46ffaba1fe1c6e3eb452\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000062\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a59a85726a4443618fee98a65340c18e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ff6569adab5a4e71b41e84d68d9b9ae4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022591c8a24d58e489fb0a394fdd7d44349\u0022\u003EPart 6  Crown entity reporting and financial obligations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2f311c5e3504040a85d3e0dc7c51379\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2f311c5e3504040a85d3e0dc7c51379\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Part 6 reflects exactly what is wrong with this legislation. It is full of weasel words and drivel and a whole lot of stuff that has been jammed into a very long document in the hope that no one will actually read it. I will start by making that quite clear in a number of interesting facts that have come forward. First, I draw the Committee\u2019s attention to clause 192, \u201CDisclosure of payments in respect of members, committee members, and employees\u201D. This is the clause that essentially states that remuneration must be declared in bands, and there is the ability for people who pick up a set of accounts from a Crown entity to understand exactly where there is remuneration and how confidentiality arrangements work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI raise that because on page 1 of this morning\u2019s Dominion Post is quite an interesting article about Judy Bailey\u2019s $800,000 pay deal, but, more important, about Ian Fraser\u2019s appearance before the Commerce Committee, in which he said there was only one confidentiality arrangement, in relation to Paul Holmes. In fact that is not correct. It now turns out that there was another confidentiality arrangement, in relation to Judy Bailey. No doubt, that will be part of the discussions held this morning with the board of TVNZ. I point out that that is exactly the situation in clause 192, where the law will not be being followed and where there are plenty of out clauses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI also want to raise the issue around the ministerial involvements in the statements of intent. The reason this is very important is that Crown entities have really prided themselves in being part of the overall Government process, but being autonomous and independent and set up with the view that the boards can control what is happening in the\u2014[Interruption] That is right. That was the theory. Back in the good old days when National led the Government, the Crown entities were able to operate in the way they should. They were responsible to the boards, and if the Government did not like what was happening in the Crown entities, it knew what action to take\u2014get in there and sack the boards, change them, do something about the matter. That is a very simple example, and we will see the Government in action, no doubt when the board of TVNZ gets the flick. But, and this is the point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a185368daad8402b8f3f577efce191af\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: But they won\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289a88f233676496ab8eef07ffdbc6079\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: They will not, because there will be a U-turn or an out clause, or something else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254517cc94a1d4f679b90c7000f8def6f\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Another flip-flop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b60260c401347a8968601b9ea0be64f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Helen Clark will find another reason to flip-flop. But let us look at clause 185, which is extremely interesting. Despite a Crown entity being independent, reporting to a board, having its own autonomy, and all the rest of it, paragraph (a) states that a Minister can actually put into the statement of intent whatever he or she wants\u2014\u201Ca responsible Minister may agree with the Crown entity that information additional to that required by sections 181 and 182 be included in the statement of intent:\u201D. It gets a little bit better. Paragraph (c) states that the Minister can just chip whenever he or she wants: \u201Ca responsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent \u2026\u201D. It is a matter of \u201CHere we go, we\u2019ve got the board. We\u2019ve set it up. Away you go. Go and run this autonomous Crown entity, but, by the way, we can put in the statement of intent anything we want, any time we like\u2014and by the way, while you are putting out your statement of intent we can sit like the Muppets on the sidelines and chip along.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThen the real doozey comes in paragraph (d), because although the Crown entity has been able to put in what it wants, with the responsible Minister chipping in along the way, the Minister can actually change what was put in, anyway\u2014and we are somehow meant to believe in this Parliament that the integrity of Crown entities, established under their own Acts of Parliament, will somehow be OK! Well, that just does not make sense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI also want to draw the Committee\u2019s attention to clause 181, \u201CContent of statement of intent\u201D, which sets out what statements of intent can contain. I wonder whether the Hon David Cunliffe might like to pop to his feet in a moment and explain to me paragraph (e), which states: \u201Chow the entity proposes to manage the organisational health \u2026\u201D. What on earth is the organisational health? I understand that on Monday a book is coming out containing new weasel words and that the library has bought it because it needs to understand what is going into legislation in this Parliament. Steve Maharey, the third-wayer, has been in there with his whole range of weasel words that are now drifting in through the Parliamentary Counsel Office into our legislation. What on earth is the organisational health of a Crown entity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233624ac44cbb4fe288ce40a907015ce5\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: He lectures in sociology.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7dc90a20c744db5921ca66bd6576b58\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. It gets slightly more interesting as well. There is clause 188, \u201CAmendments to statement of intent by Crown entity\u201D. First, the good news is that a Crown entity can change its statement of intent any time it likes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00229c0595f17b2a4439bb73382dd182a700\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c0595f17b2a4439bb73382dd182a700\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I will carry on from where my good colleague John Key left off. I ask the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, whether he is hell-bent on bringing Parliament into derision. Some of the clauses in Part 6 are simply derisory. I will give members an example of what I mean. The Labour Government now finds it necessary, under clause 186, to put into our law the process for providing the statement of intent to a responsible Minister. The Labour Ministers are so incompetent, hopeless, and useless that the law has to spell out how a statement of intent is to be provided to them by a Crown entity they are responsible for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIs this serious stuff? Here we are, debating this under urgency just before Christmas. If it were April Fool\u2019s Day I would say, \u201COK, you caught us out. Fair enough, we were fools to think you were serious about this.\u201D But it is not April Fool\u2019s Day, and clause 186 is bizarre garbage. How hopeless, useless, and incompetent are Labour Ministers that they have to put that into legislation? It is not simply a set of recommendations. It is the law of New Zealand. We pass the law of the land in this Parliament, and Labour finds it necessary to spell out how a statement of intent is meant to be provided to a Minister. For goodness\u2019 sake, a Minister worth half a pinch of salt can pick up the phone and say that he or she wants the statement of intent tomorrow, and it had damn well better be delivered. Oh, no, Labour is so useless that its legislation spends great paragraphs spelling it all out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EBut there is worse. That is just the farcical bit. Let us look at some of the serious stuff. Clause 180, \u201CStatement of intent for new established Crown entities\u201D, states in subclause (3): \u201CThe responsible Minister may give directions to the Crown entity on any matters referred to in section 181(1)(b) to (d), (g), and (ga)\u201D. I have no problem with the Minister being able to give directions, as provided in clause 181(1)(b), over the \u201Cscope of the entity\u2019s functions and intended operations\u201D. Clearly, there is a responsibility to make sure a Crown entity is proposing to carry out functions consistent with overall Government policy. But paragraph (d) states that the Minister can also give directions on \u201Chow the entity intends to perform its functions and conduct its operations\u201D. So under that paragraph, the Minister can give direction to a new Crown entity as to how it is to perform its functions. He or she can meddle absolutely in the management of a Crown entity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThat is totally contrary to what Crown entities are meant to be all about. They are meant to be at arm\u2019s length from the Government, with a board of directors able to perform independently of Government political interference. Clause 181(1)(d) gives the Labour Government the chance to meddle absolutely in the management\u2014how it intends to perform its functions\u2014of a Crown entity. That is not just farcical but bad legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhile I am talking about statements of intent, I want to come to clause 185, which puts in the law of New Zealand, under paragraph (c), that a \u201Cresponsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent\u201D. What on earth does the law need to state that for? I just cannot believe this stuff. I spent 9 years as a Minister and promoted a lot of legislation. If a department had come along to me with a bill with that sort of junk in it, I would have told it to take that garbage away and get rid of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhy does the law of the land of New Zealand need to state that the \u201Cresponsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent\u201D? What dopey, dopey, dopey stuff! How much more does the Government want to denigrate the laws of New Zealand? It is demeaning our laws. To have this junk in the law simply demeans it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00224495be295cf541f0bd5b1e9d142c5b01\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224495be295cf541f0bd5b1e9d142c5b01\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I want to comment on clause 210, \u201COffences\u201D, too. Tertiary institutions were deeply concerned about these provisions. If we take that clause and clause 211, \u201CPenalties for offences\u201D, put them alongside some of the other clauses relating to statements of intent\u2014whereby a responsible Minister can direct a supposedly stand-alone Crown entity as to what can be in the statement of intent, and can amend it\u2014then relate them to clauses that have been debated in earlier parts, we can see a pattern emerge. That pattern leads to the final nail in the coffin for Crown entities being stand-alone and at arm\u2019s length from the executive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe definition of what now comes under the control of the executive includes not just universities but also the Symphony Orchestra, the Historic Places Trust, and all those stand-alone entities. Sure, they have always been Crown entities, but this legislation gives far more power to the responsible Minister in terms of interfering with those entities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAn example of how that is manifest today is the Government\u2019s huge embarrassment over what is happening at TVNZ. First of all, the Government appointed Ross Armstrong as chairman of TVNZ. That turned to custard. It appointed Craig Boyce as chairman. Do we have an effective board? No, we do not. Another Government appointee, Ann Hercus, who is also on the financial committee, signed off on Judy Bailey\u2019s salary rise. Those negotiations have dragged on for so long and have been so ineptly handled. There was no poaching of Judy Bailey by any other company. It was simply the ineptness of the board that led to the situation whereby her salary was doubled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ESo what happened? The board signed off on it. Then one of the board members rushed to the Minister of Broadcasting to tell him what had happened, and what did the Government try to do? It tried to manage the situation and pre-empt it with damage control by leaking the story to the media. Well, has that not backfired hugely? We have only to look at the letters to the editor in the Dominion Post today to see how it has backfired for the Government\u2014a Government that campaigned on ending the culture of extravagance. The same Prime Minister who said the public was revolted at Paul Holmes\u2019 salary will now say that heads will roll at the board, but it is a bit too late for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat will happen when a vice-chancellor or the council of a university does something that gets up the nose of the Government of the day\u2014any Government\u2014under this legislation? Will the Government come out swinging, have a little hissy fit, and say that heads will roll at that university because it has not followed the responsible Minister\u2019s interference and meddling in the statement of intent? What will happen if the Symphony Orchestra\u2014which, as I said yesterday, is under the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Judith Tizard\u2014plays the music of what she calls \u201Cdead, white men\u201D. Beethoven and Bach, she said, have had their day and should not be played. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022427832a44a724a43add55065a3a666e7\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Extraordinary!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3067fba72324ac186ec59f252096de2\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc346f4a5f3d4977b6bc728b6d5315c7\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Who said that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d4b13d64621420abae1d4bc20998eed\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7b8bb0cface497d8116b700d0fdb113\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: She didn\u2019t!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4dcc80086994884adce3cadbaa36e34\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: She did. The member should go back through Hansard. The point is that the Government should not have the power to meddle in day-to-day affairs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EOf course, it suits the Government very well not to provide information about what goes on, when it does not want to. If, for instance, one submits a written parliamentary question about the policy of TVNZ in checking the background of senior employees in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Government does not want to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022379afc9628854f77b8d5b78299b793d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022379afc9628854f77b8d5b78299b793d8\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E In the debate on the previous part, I mentioned to the Minister of Education that he was obviously waiting to put into practice those provisions relating to the actions of the present Teachers Council\u2014a council that has reached an all-time low. But in clause 192 in this part I detect something else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI recently read a number of Education Review Office reports, and I saw a trend developing in those reports that is completely contrary to the Education Act but allowable under clause 192\u2014that is, that a member of a board of trustees, apart from the principal or staff trustee, may be an employee of the board. As I understand it, the Education Act expressly states one cannot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ERecent Education Review Office reports on schools have outlined where a ministry direction has arisen surreptitiously by virtue of a board member. In one particular report, express mention was made that that board member was being paid. When I searched through the Education Act and its relevant amendments, I did not quite see how that could be, and I am composing a letter to the Minister of Education on the very issue at the moment, but now I see a sudden light in relation to clause 192.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe provision says, contrary to the fundamental Act regarding boards of trustees, that such employment is possible. Not only is it possible but so long as the total value of the remuneration is disclosed and the employee is known, payment is also possible under this clause. For boards of trustees that marks a significant departure and gives some legality to what was said not to be possible under the previous Act people worked with\u2014so much so that the Ministry of Education has given advice to its advisers that they should not be on boards of trustees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThis legislation goes far beyond that. It allows expressly for State control in the old-fashioned Labour sense. That is the problem with this Labour Government: new Labour and old Labour are all mixed up. That goes right back to the ministry having pernicious influence\u2014almost by stealth, as it were\u2014over individual boards, which now gives legality to those actions. Subclauses (1)(a), (c), and (d) in particular give that ability, which is a significant departure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIf that is so for boards of trustees and groups I know of in the education sector, it will also be so for others. When we combine the trends in this legislation for State direction and control that we hitherto had not seen but that are now being compressed legally provision by provision, and when we have the ability to pay in a way that before was not legally possible, we really start to see\u2014although I am not a believer in conspiracy theory, at all\u2014why this bill marks quite a departure from the past, despite its ordinary, everyday, mundane provisions. New Zealand First will be opposing the legislation on that ground.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00222fe9951e32ae499bb139efec9ae225e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fe9951e32ae499bb139efec9ae225e1\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This part of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill deals with Crown entity reporting and financial obligations. I will pick up on the theme established by Mr Key and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in their contributions earlier. It seems to me that they were fundamentally asking why we need to have 100 pages of legislation that set out how a Crown entity must report when it has always been implicit that that agency must report anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWhat does that suggest? Does it suggest that somehow this Government is stacked full of incompetent Ministers who do not know how to go through the reports of the various departments and entities they are responsible for and find the information they need? I do not believe that. I think they are capable of doing that. I think most people in this Chamber are capable of doing that. But this 100-odd pages of legislation is about the philosophy of the Labour Party and the Labour Government in trying to make the State bigger and in having greater control over it, so that it can meddle much more directly in the everyday lives of New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EUnited Future members might sit over there, grin, and say that that is a ridiculous and preposterous suggestion, but they have not yet bothered to make a contribution to this debate. They have been good enough to put us into urgency until some time next week so that we can get this legislation passed, but they have no opinion on it, whatsoever. As far as United Future is concerned, whatever Helen Clark says is the rule. That is it\u2014one just goes by it. One just takes on board whatever Michael Cullen says, too, and runs with it. I think I am right in suggesting that the Labour Party is about growing the bureaucracy in this country and gaining greater control of it, so that it can meddle more directly in individual New Zealanders\u2019 lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI refer the Committee to clause 190. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a269e55971334967ad9bb09b2bb88a5f\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: Are you for or against?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c3140e87ff8424fb7fd7c6daa394443\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: The United Future member wants to know if National members are for or against. We are against the bill; we are opposed to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI refer the Committee to clause 190(4): \u201CA Crown entity must publish its annual report\u201D\u2014it is a preposterous suggestion that it may not anyway\u2014\u201Cas soon as practicable after it has been presented to the House \u2026\u201D, etc. The clause then states that the Minister may have some effect on how that information is reported under clause 213. If we look at clause 213, we see that the Minister will receive the information from the Crown entity or department and can then determine just what part of it will be reported to the public. If that is not about trying to control the information flow to prevent New Zealanders from knowing what is going on in the entities they own, then I do not know what is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EClause 213(1) states that the Minister may: \u201C(a) prescribe minimum requirements concerning the publication of information \u2026\u201D. He can tell the entities how much to publish, what not to publish, and when to publish. As other colleagues in the Committee have pointed out, the clause also gives the capacity for the Minister to ignore official information requests and to obfuscate any expectation that an answer to a parliamentary question may be given correctly. Overall, the clause is consistent with my view that it is about saying to New Zealanders: \u201CWe are the Government; we know best; listen to us and we will do what we think is right for you. You New Zealanders do not need to have a say in this.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EJust to point out how ridiculous, petty, and pathetic this entire part is, we need look only at the tiny little clause that deals with the issue of gifting. Clause 206A states: \u201C(1) Any money or property that is gifted to a Crown entity may be accepted or disclaimed by a Crown entity.\u201D What on earth do we need to put that in the law for? Entities may accept a gift or bequest, or they may not. If that were not in the law, what would be different?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Noting that neither the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, nor the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee seem particularly interested in participating in this debate, I seek the leave of the Committee to ask questions about this important part of Mr John Key, who has done an enormous amount of work on the select committee and knows a terrific amount about the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251a398aaa1c243b48070fc990e935432\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u00222f8c275868444e9ca4b704d515ae60e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f8c275868444e9ca4b704d515ae60e8\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I must say that that speech from Gerry Brownlee, the deputy leader of the National Party, was a bit more constructive than the one we had from Simon Power a few minutes ago. Simon Power spent three-quarters of his 5-minute speech criticising United Future and the other quarter slamming the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe. I have never heard such a lot of bluster with such a lack of content in any speech on any occasion in my 2\u00BD years in this Parliament. At no time did National member Simon Power tell this Committee why his party is opposing this bill. It was a novel way to discuss a 500-page bill\u2014never once to refer to the bill\u2019s contents but just to huff and puff to see whether the hot air generated might eventually ignite the bill so that it went up in smoke. It was hardly credible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ELet us take clause 190, for example, which was just spoken on by Gerry Brownlee. Does National really think that Crown entities should not publish their annual accounts? Because I think they should. Let us take clause 192. Does National believe that Crown entities should not tell the New Zealand public what they are paying their staff? Because I think they should. Maybe we should look at clause 196 and ask whether National believes that Crown entities should not have their accounts audited. Is that the proposition that the National Party has brought to this debate today\u2014that Crown entities should not have their accounts audited? Because I think they should. Let us take new clause 199. Does National believe that Crown entities should not have a bank account\u2014that we should operate the agencies of this Government without bank accounts\u2014and that, because bank accounts are mentioned in this bill, we should oppose that provision? I actually think that bank accounts might prove to be quite useful for most Crown entities and most organisations to operate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EHere is a really good one: clause 208 in Part 6. The National Party believes that Crown entities should not pay tax. It believes that they should operate, make a profit, and simply keep the money, whereas other entities in this country, those in the private sector, should pay tax. Well, I think that Crown entities should pay tax, and that this is a good bill. The provisions in it are constructive. They move things forward. If National members disagree with that, then, for goodness\u2019 sake, they should get up and tell the Committee for once why they are opposing the bill, because all we have heard is hot air and bluster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIt is a sad thing that the once-proud and constructive National Party, now bereft of policy and unable to make a reasoned contribution to this Parliament, is simply resorting to bluster and hot air. Mind you, there may be a secret behind all of that. We have heard recently, on a number of occasions, to do with a number of policy initiatives, that the National Party will keep them secret until nearer the election. I think that when Simon Power goes out next time on the hustings in Rangitikei to campaign for re-election in 2005, he will tell his electors why his party members voted against this bill. Then perhaps, at last, this Parliament and the New Zealand public will find out why they are opposing the bill. I have listened very carefully to this debate and I have not yet heard one decent reason why those guys are opposing it. But they should keep trying, because I have an open mind and maybe they can convince me if they really work hard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd45a1b4d1fb48ae8930e4a240dee900\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd45a1b4d1fb48ae8930e4a240dee900\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to Part 6 I want to alert the Committee to clause 212, \u201CRegulations under this Part\u201D. I will read it out very carefully, because there is something very, very important in it that I think most politicians have overlooked up to this point. I believe that there are many important parts, but this is an extremely important part: it has the possibility of being very, very dangerous. Clause 212(1) states: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:\u201D. Members should listen to this: \u201C(a) requiring Crown entities to include information in a statement of intent or annual report that is\u201D\u2014and they should listen to this\u2014\u201Cadditional \u2026\u201D. So after they have done everything, after they have complied with everything that this Minister and this Government have wanted them to comply with, after all of that, the provision states they may be required to include information \u201Cthat is additional to the information required by this Act:\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222289205e70844e008b9601e7bc1e41d4\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an outrage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e81c4f8ce0c8426a85fdd7ebec4af242\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. I say it is a constitutional outrage of gigantic proportions. That is what it is. It is the epitome of State control. It is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about\u2014nanny State coming in and taking control of our lives. That is what the Government wants to do. It does not just want people to have to comply with certain requirements and so on to a certain degree; it wants to go one step further. The Government wants the authority to send the KGB in with its guns and regalia, in order to have a look into every nook and cranny of our lives. That is what this bill is about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251933c93e2344d2390c5380e17ef0588\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Draconian socialist legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c64a2cf47ce4cb6afcd2a2c5429d68b\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Draconian socialist legislation of the worst type! That is what it is. I have members over on this side of the Chamber agreeing with me on that\u2014because they know that it is true. The members over on that side know that it is true, as well. It is a fact and they know it. I want to talk to the Committee regarding clause 212, because despite all the guidance this bill is supposed to provide to State entities, the Government had to add an additional clause to it. The Government threw it in when it thought nobody was looking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6366b95d8754584965dc7335cd857bd\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: They hide it in a huge bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269e22d99997a4fd396fac948c91c1e7f\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: The Government hid it in a huge bill when it thought no one was looking. It was hidden in a bill that is 400\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd2c01df7cdd4efc953d19e6e3d2ec8b\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: 500 pages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022190413b47cf54b5da4321b96ff9a3d8a\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014exactly 500 pages long. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229777404806740908a9ddf39fc8eee51\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: How does the member know that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd354a1b434a4248abe12775922fc5f8\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Because I just read the page numbers. I read the bill, unlike some members on the Opposition benches who have not even read the bill but who are supporting this draconian legislation. It is an outrage, and it will provide more power to this Government to have more impact on our personal and social lives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002292b7532d7c124ef5916e4eac45746bc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292b7532d7c124ef5916e4eac45746bc6\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The amount of hot air that comes out of the mouths of those members opposing this bill is extraordinary. I wish they would shed a little more light and a little less heat on the subject. I am still waiting for the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the ACT party to put forward any amendments to this bill. If the bill were so terrible, one would think they would want to try to fix it. But has there been a single initiative on the part of those parties to improve this bill? No, there has not been, whereas the Green Party has engaged constructively in this debate. I would like to thank Simon Power for acknowledging that in his last speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EMy last constructive contribution is to Part 6, because the Greens have another amendment that we would like to put on the Table. I am pleased to advise the rest of the Committee that the Minister of Finance has decided to support our amendment. It is an amendment to clause 199(1)(a), which will insert after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D. It is an extraordinarily positive step forward for the Government to acknowledge that building societies play a crucial role in the New Zealand financial sector, and that they are appropriate institutions for Crown entities to deposit their funds in. If members read the commentary on this bill, they will see that the bill was amended in the select committee to accommodate the Taranaki savings bank, TSB Bank Ltd, in which I declare an interest. It is a fantastic institution where not only I do my personal banking but the Green Futures Superannuation Fund does its banking. So the bill has been amended to ensure there is no discrimination against the Taranaki savings bank. I would like to say that now, as a result of the Government agreeing with my amendment, this bill will no longer discriminate against building societies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThat is an important step for building societies. At the moment there are numerous bank preference clauses in many pieces of legislation that stop Government departments, tertiary institutions, hospitals, and schools from investing their hard-earned savings in building societies. So adding building societies to clause 199 is a significant step forward in recognising that building societies not only play a crucial role in our society but should not be discriminated against. Indeed, we have had the reverse situation up until now. By only banks being referred to, there is an implied Government endorsement, which I think is unfortunate and unfair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ESo I am pleased to propose amendments to clause 199 and clause 177 to fix this anomaly, and in proposing those amendments I acknowledge what an important role building societies play in New Zealand. I do declare an interest. I have a $10 account with the Southland Building Society, and I am currently studying that society as part of the Business and Parliament Trust, which is an excellent exchange for members of Parliament to learn more about businesses. I can tell members that there are 10 building societies in New Zealand. They have 150,000 members. They have assets of $2.7 billion. The oldest was established in 1862. The Southland Building Society, which I am studying, had a record year this year. I was pleased to be at its AGM. Its assets were up by 12.7 percent to $1.5 billion, which is roughly half the assets of all building societies. Its equity was up 14.6 percent. Its advances were up 19 percent. Its pre-tax operating surplus was up 11.5 percent to $18 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThank goodness it still exists, and thank goodness Stephen Franks did not get his way when he was acting as an adviser to the old board and advised it to sell the building society to Westpac! Chapman Tripp, which he worked for at the time, was paid $290,000 for its advice, and thank goodness the parochial Southlanders ignored that advice and decided to keep their building society in local ownership, instead of selling out to yet another foreign-owned bank. We need our building societies, and Kiwis recognise that. They do not like foreign-owned banks. They do not like profits going offshore. They want to support local financial institutions such as building societies and the TSB Bank Ltd. The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, comes from Taranaki, and I know that he has been a strong advocate of that bank.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI am pleased that the Government has agreed to support my amendment to enable Crown entities also to save with their local building society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00229095b01871bb418caf0bc3ed4d8781f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229095b01871bb418caf0bc3ed4d8781f9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I also want to speak to Rod Donald\u2019s amendment to clause 199. I just imagine now, in Auckland, Judy Bailey pulling up to TVNZ\u2019s office in her Audi convertible, thinking that the first item on the news tonight will be that Rod Donald has successfully moved this dramatic amendment in Parliament today\u2014this dramatic amendment whereby we are going to add the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D. What an achievement for a man who has been here for 6 years! Six long years!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e60c508b73c4dff83ac2ddaad635e68\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Eight!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022133d6fb6102c401c8f43b902bd79ef01\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Eight long years! Rod Donald has been here in this Parliament for 8 long years, and he comes up with this dramatic amendment that can justify his\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0d0094705364d0c989a9e724f7023d6\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s been working on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f9bdc98a24f4e77bb586e11b34e28b6\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, he has. It must have taken him a long time. Not only does he achieve this monumental step in his parliamentary career but he takes the opportunity of revealing to Parliament today that he may have a vested interest because he has an account with a credit of $10 at the Southland Building Society. I say to Barry Coleman that, as he is preparing the next NBR Rich List, he needs to check out this man. He needs to check out Rod Donald and show what a remarkable capitalist that man has become and the progress he has made with this huge amendment in Parliament today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI also want to comment on the incredible contribution I heard from Gordon Copeland. He said he is supporting this legislation because it empowers a Crown entity to open a bank account. What are we doing rushing a bill of this size through Parliament today? Gordon Copeland says his party, United Future, is supporting it on the basis that he has found a clause in here that states that Crown entities must establish a bank account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI am more worried by the level of Government interference in Crown entities that can occur if this legislation is passed today. There are clauses like clause 213, \u201CMinister of Finance instructions\u201D. Subclause (1) states: \u201CThe Minister of Finance may issue instructions to Crown entities, that,\u2014(a) prescribe minimum requirements \u2026 (b) prescribe the non-financial reporting standards \u2026\u201D, etc. What we have seen over many years is the establishment of Crown enterprises as a means of getting politics out of their operations, so that they can operate to the best economic performance and deliver to the shareholders\u2014in other words, the New Zealand taxpayers. But what this Government does with this legislation is put its ever-increasing political manipulation into the operation of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities. I say that is fundamentally wrong. We will see issues like the performance pay of Judy Bailey become something that is decreed by the degree of political embarrassment that the Prime Minister feels. She appointed every one of the board members of Television New Zealand. They are all well and truly recognised as Labour Party lackeys.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c81f54c132a4ec0a6fd9222ec7d66b8\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: Did the Lyttelton voters appoint you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022feeaf9529c644adba6b0d1e51ad8c151\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: No. The Lyttelton voters do not exist. The electorate, I tell that member, is actually Banks Peninsula. It is a Labour electorate, and I am proud to represent the people who have the sense to vote for me every time we have a general election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b21fa619e4645e3baa0e8be2d437e76\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: And you lost that seat.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290f7b71a00044f13840c3ad6ec4c8b9f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Rod Donald has stood in that electorate on four occasions, and he hardly gets his deposit back, so he can chip in all he likes. I will make one guarantee to Rod Donald: he will never win the Banks Peninsula electorate as long as\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bee04981013c4c6aac9e26a13c505f0d\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019ll never win an electorate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224472fdf57b041d1b1b2a9586c79206e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: That is true\u2014but he may now, because of this remarkable development today. He has done a deal with Labour. He has said the Greens will support the urgency motion, and will let Labour rush this huge bill through Parliament, provided that he can have the audacity to include the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D in clause 199. I say to the Committee that it should take note of this monumental achievement from the Green member Rod Donald. He has been here a long time, and has achieved very, very little, but today he has his first significant win, and the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D will now be included in the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf7f37fcb39b4a508f65c94a08443366\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf7f37fcb39b4a508f65c94a08443366\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u002231f46b9878154302be22f9ead30b5bd3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231f46b9878154302be22f9ead30b5bd3\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E I cannot help reflecting on the fact that Judy Bailey was attacked by the Prime Minister for getting paid $800,000 a year for 4\u00BD minutes\u2019 work on 5\u00BD days a week, but Rod Donald, a co-leader of the Green Party, just demonstrated to us that he has earned his whole year\u2019s parliamentary salary of over $100,000 by producing an amendment containing two little words\u2014\u201Cbuilding society\u201D! I thought that was very interesting: if one aims low one gets to where one wants to be. That member has proposed a lot more amendments during this debate that were totally ignored. Those two little words are his Christmas gift from Dr Michael Cullen. At least he got something, but the Minister would not give any tax reduction, not even a small one, to the hard-working New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI would also like to take up the challenge posed by the United Future member Gordon Copeland. I suddenly realised that he is a sensitive new-age man. He was offended because the National Party whip Simon Power asked United Future to answer the question why United Future supported this part of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I am feeling a bit sensitive, too. Gordon Copeland and I are both members of the very prestigious Institute of Chartered Accountants. I thought that we, as chartered accountants, understood statements of intent and financial statements. And, of course, Gordon Copeland and I happen to be fellow committee members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Even Air New Zealand, a publicly listed company, has come before that select committee to present its financial review, and we certainly have done financial reviews of Meridian Energy and numerous Crown entities for as long as the chairman has allowed us to. So what makes Gordon Copeland think those Crown entities would not supply Parliament with their financial statements and statements of corporate intent, without this 500-page legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI want to raise an issue of concern, and that is the overkill in this legislation. First of all, clause 195 spells out what a statement of responsibility, which a Crown entity has to provide, should comprise. One would have thought that what it provided would be enough for the responsible Minister to get all the information he or she wanted. Further on, this provision also allows him or her to interfere by directing additional responsibility. But after all those stringent requirements we then find clause 209, \u201CPower to require output agreement\u201D. On top of all those provisions requiring Crown entities to say what they want to produce\u2014what sort of outcome\u2014and how they intend to achieve it, and to report whether they fail or succeed in achieving it, a Minister can have the authority to \u201Crequire a Crown entity to have in place an output agreement for any or all outputs that the Crown entity intends to provide that do not qualify for an exemption \u2026\u201D. I wonder why the Minister does not just put in a clause to say that the Minister can request whatever he or she wants!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00225a0850eddf7c48f5b4d106f3ec3e76a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a0850eddf7c48f5b4d106f3ec3e76a8\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E It is really good to see the young guns of New Zealand First start to hit their straps. It is good to see a bit of energy and a bit of passion, in stark contrast with the drivel we heard from Gordon Copeland and Rod Donald.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d39815df635f45328496854f46dc3ae3\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Did they win?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0ceceeeb5914840a90128235b9168ce\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Rod Donald has put $10 into the Southland banking society. My advice to him is to get his money out before he goes broke, because that will be his last $10. It is very good of him to invest everything he has in it, but we suggest he should get his money out now, before it is too late. Gordon Copeland was really upset because Simon Power suggested we did not need to legislate for Crown entities to open bank accounts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d4fb6b5936e445db0f772f7e91398ad\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think we do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b24749886a7b4e0c9e38c48f298b48b7\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: I do not think we do, either. I think Gordon Copeland was very right to say, with such gusto, passion, and determination, that he was really upset. Let me say this to Mr Copeland. Producers in the productive sector of this country are fed up to the back teeth with red tape and bureaucracy. This bill is a classic example of it. This bill is 500 pages long, and most of it is repetitive. I think I could reduce this bill to at least one-third of its size, by cutting out some of the nonsense that we see in it. The United Future members get to their feet and want to legislate for more of that sort of nonsense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI will tell Mr Copeland this, for nothing: National is voting against the bill. Gordon Copeland and the United Future party purport to support the productive sector and small business in this country, in particular. But he stands in the Chamber and wants to legislate for this type of nonsense. Let us look at some of the stuff that I am talking about. The statement of intent starts on page 229 and goes right through to page 236. There are seven pages in the statement of intent. In anybody else\u2019s language, it is just a forecast. Any board member worth his or her salt would look at that and wonder why he or she should bother. The Minister in the chair, Mr Duynhoven, knows what I am talking about. He is a man who has been around a little. He knows that we do not need to legislate to tell people how to do up their shoelaces before they go outside. That is exactly what this bill does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ELet me look at clause 181. Someone has already mentioned subclause (1)(e), which states: \u201Chow the entity proposes to manage the organisational health and the capability of the entity:\u201D. Will a Government member stand and take a call\u2014maybe Mr Copeland will stand and take a call\u2014and explain exactly what that means? Maybe Mr Donald will stand and take a call, because he is very keen on supporting this legislation. Then subclause (1)(g) states: \u201Cthe matters on which the Crown entity will consult or notify its responsible Minister before making a decision \u2026\u201D. That is like having a dog and barking, too. Why would any self-respecting board member want to get involved in a Crown entity that gave the Minister that type of power\u2014that type of interference? What we get is boards of inferior quality, because their members are the only types of people who would take the job on. It is no wonder that Judy Bailey was able to snow the board of Television New Zealand. Because of the quality of that board, which is made up of Government appointees\u2014ex-Labour hacks\u2014she was able to snow them by convincing them that she would go somewhere else. All the competing organisations said they were not talking to her and did not want her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca8e1833d8554cf3b93879e2c4ceb340\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca8e1833d8554cf3b93879e2c4ceb340\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Minister for Racing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a04e1d43ebaa4a928a6b388aea05369d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000156\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 177 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000157\u0022\u003Eto insert, after the definition of registered bank, the following new definition:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000158\u0022\u003Eregistered building society means a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1965 that is registered on the register of building societies kept under that Act.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223c6b9795635f4663b7c63d7db856f2e2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000159\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that an amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd7e0dc5d29147848a6a39c27e9d0673\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd7e0dc5d29147848a6a39c27e9d0673\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I missed the vote from United Future, and I ask that it be repeated. I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u00223cf8c450e60949e784d669ae4ed4ad08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cf8c450e60949e784d669ae4ed4ad08\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (Whip\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Eight opposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u002225f7e43b1e47439ba0d64a45d66500e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225f7e43b1e47439ba0d64a45d66500e2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I ask the member from the Green Party whether there is a vote from the M\u0101ori Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002221cee4b854a9438a8b80f4174b412bc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221cee4b854a9438a8b80f4174b412bc6\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Musterer\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I apologise, Mr Chairperson. I was just trying to clarify for the benefit of Mr Copeland that having voted to incorporate building societies, he is now voting against the definition of building societies. I apologise for interrupting the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u002260e14aac9f7b42bfbbe2aaf704c5465f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260e14aac9f7b42bfbbe2aaf704c5465f\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept the member\u2019s explanation in his point of clarification, but the Committee needs to be assured that United Future is not being persuaded to vote in a certain way by other political parties in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u00229d527123d44147ddb215cb3f57969da4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d527123d44147ddb215cb3f57969da4\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Musterer\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I give an assurance that I was not trying to persuade United Future; I was just concerned about how inconsistent it would look when its votes were examined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003Eto insert in subclause (1)(a), after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D, the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2217bb12f8b4055b2b501eb41fe9f94\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000168\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000169\u0022\u003Eto insert in subclause (1)(b), after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D, the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022002abd390ba34aca85ab0c144bdae329\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000170\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000171\u0022\u003Eto insert in subclause (5) after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D the words \u201Cor registered building society\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224013abb5e1084d3cb078cb4dfeb68e20\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000172\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 188 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in his name to Part 6 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000173\u0022\u003Eto omit from subclause (2)(b)(i) the words\u201Dgiven by the Governor-General by Order in Council\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002293359d2c9b8c4ebfba7acbdd0a020a16\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022faef5cb9360e4450b8927c28ac376637\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022814de07be03a4d58ae71bb1784e10cb7\u0022\u003EPart 7  Miscellaneous provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022df49f18ef64a4f448273a30c14a7b7a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df49f18ef64a4f448273a30c14a7b7a0\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance in respect of Part 7. You will note that the clauses go up to and include clause 236, \u201CAmendments to other enactments\u201D. The enactments referred to in clause 236 are set out in schedule 8. Schedule 8 amends a large number of Acts. The guidance I seek from you is whether it is intended that the debate on Part 7 will cover the contents of schedule 8 as well, because the schedule contains a very large set of amendments to a very large number of Acts. I seek your advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a32a67bc1cd4d1e807b828861d6a9b8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Indeed it absolutely does cover that schedule. I was just about to give that explanation. Part 7, clauses 217 to 236, includes debate on schedule 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u00222f687dd9575e44b395f55da850a01e58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f687dd9575e44b395f55da850a01e58\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E The Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, really must take a call on this part. I am very worried about clause 222, \u201CExisting members exempt from qualification requirements\u201D, as it has very serious implications. It states: \u201CEvery member of a statutory entity or Crown entity company or a Crown entity subsidiary in office at the commencement of this section may continue in office for the remainder of his or her current term of office \u2026\u201D and be exempted from the requirements specified in clauses 72 and 132, which are very obvious reasons for disqualification. Under clause 72, a person cannot be appointed to a board if he or she is an undischarged bankrupt, \u201Ca person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or being concerned or taking part in the management of, a company \u2026\u201D, \u201Ca person who is subject to a property order \u2026\u201D, \u201Ca person in respect of whom a personal order has been made \u2026 that reflects adversely on the person\u2019s\u2014(i) competence to manage his or her own affairs \u2026\u201D, \u201Ca person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more,\u201D, or\u2014I am not sure for what reason\u2014a member of Parliament. Clause 132, \u201CCriteria for appointments by shareholding Minister\u201D, states that a shareholding Minister may appoint a person who, in the Minister\u2019s opinion: \u201Chas the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to ensure the sound management of the Crown entity company \u2026\u201D will be carried out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI think the Minister should take a call on this. Why should the existing board members, under this provision, continue their terms and be exempt from these very basic and obvious requirements? Is the Minister trying to tell the public that some existing members of the boards of these statutory entities and Crown entities, etc., would be barred from holding that office because they have had a prison sentence of 2 years, or are not competent to manage their affairs? I hope that the Minister, instead of laughing, smiling, and talking away, will take a call and state categorically that this provision is totally unnecessary in terms of exempting those members from clauses 72 and 132. All it does is send a message to the public that some existing board members may be incompetent or bankrupts, or, alternatively, that the Minister is trying to protect some existing board members who should be disqualified. It is quite a concern to us on this side of the Chamber that such people may be appointed to a board. We have questioned the appointment of the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, to eight Crown entities, but we hope he has not infringed any of those obvious requirements that exclude people from being board members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to draw to members\u2019 attention is clause 226, \u201CContinuation of existing board committees\u201D. I wonder whether the Minister is lamenting that the Government is missing an opportunity to remove this clause\u2014to support National\u2019s call for it not to proceed. Changing this clause to say that the Minister may choose to discontinue existing board committees may help the Minister of Broadcasting out of a very tight situation. The Minister once again finds himself helpless under the current requirements. He told Parliament that he could not do anything to the TVNZ board, even though the Government was not very happy with the continuation of the culture of extravagance in that entity. I think the Minister should take a call and answer my two questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfaa3d2e61c1402fb6c02cad4c2609e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfaa3d2e61c1402fb6c02cad4c2609e0\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I want to draw members\u2019 attention to clause 229, which looks at the liability provisions. I think liability is an issue that is worth at least exploring today. It is a well-known fact that indemnity is provided for directors of Crown entities\u2014and, in fact, for employees of Crown entities in certain instances; there have been quite a number of cases. I note from an earlier part of the legislation that it has been decided that the liability indemnity and insurance should be registered and made clear in the statement of intent. In a situation where a board member is covered under a liability indemnity or by indemnity insurance, the process is that if a board member, say, contracts with a Crown entity and there is some form of liability or there is an action taken against that Crown entity, the action is against the entity itself. Therefore, the compensation payable by the Crown entity will be paid by the Crown entity, or by its insurers, and not by the individual directors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI raise that point because we are increasingly moving to a litigious world where people are likely to take legal action. So I think that in the first instance those who look to be appointed to Crown entities will be relieved that\u2014and it is pretty standard business practice\u2014indemnity insurance will be provided for them. But I wonder whether listing in the statement the extent of that liability insurance is a wise thing. I say that because, if one looks at a number of large institutions overseas, one sees that that is not, in fact, the case there. It is well understood that the directors will have liability insurance, and it is well understood that they act as agents for the company\u2014or, in this case, the Crown entity. But I do think there is an issue about specifically stating what the extent of that insurance is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThis is why. When I was engaged by a former US investment bank that had a number of lawsuits undertaken against it, the feeling of internal counsel was always that when it was known how large the indemnity insurance was, the bank was likely to become a target for legal action. So the Minister might want to think about the provisions under clause 229 and the way they relate to the statements of intent for Crown entities. He might want to consider whether it is actually sensible to spell out the full level of liability insurance, or whether it would be better just to say that there is a presumptive condition that liability insurance will be provided. As a director of a number of companies myself, I have obviously made it clear that those entities have liability insurance, but I do not think spelling it out specifically in black and white is always necessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI also want to make reference to another aspect of clause 229. Again, the Minister might want to look at this and proffer a view on it. The clause seems to me to be saying that liability insurance or indemnity may be provided for an action taken by a person before he or she was engaged by a Crown entity. I just need to understand that completely. One can imagine a number of scenarios where someone may be engaged by a Crown entity and thereby come within the ambit of its liability insurance. This clause seems to me to be saying that in some circumstances\u2014and I cannot see in the legislation exactly what those circumstances may or may not be\u2014indemnity for a past action may, in fact, be provided. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIt would be quite a remarkable situation if someone who is invited to join a Crown entity board and for some reason\u2014whatever unusual scenario could possibly be dreamt up\u2014has an action taken against him or her, might be covered by the Crown entity\u2019s liability insurance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to make reference to schedule 8, which, as you commented earlier, Mr Chairperson, will be included in Part 7 of this legislation that we are debating under urgency and will be debating for quite some hours to come. I make reference to the huge number of Crown entities that will be affected by this legislation. It is a hugely broad range of entities, ranging from arts councils to alcohol advisory boards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00228dc9caddb64043f88f2f2f08a057e360\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228dc9caddb64043f88f2f2f08a057e360\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E The debate we are now having on Part 7 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill is possibly one of the most important debates with regard to this bill. I believe the Committee should look at, and spend some time on, the complexity of what we are debating right now. Clause 236 brings in schedule 8, which, as my colleague John Key has just said, amends a whole plethora of Acts. Of greatest significance to New Zealand are the amendments to the Education Act 1989. In order for these matters to be in a schedule they should be purely consequential amendments, I would have thought, and should not make major changes that are not purely consequential. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister in the chair to give some thought to this. The particular part of schedule 8 that I am concerned about amends the Education Act 1989. The particular sections in the Education Act 1989 that are being amended that I would like the Minister to focus on are those relating to section 203, which is repealed and substituted in schedule 8. That schedule lays out how this bill affects our tertiary institutions because section 203 refers to the institutions being Crown entities. That is covered in section 48 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Act 2003. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe bits that I wanted to look at particularly are the new unanimous sections 203(2) and 203(3) to the Education Act. Section 203(3) states: \u201CThe provisions of that Act set out in Schedule 6B of that Act\u201D\u2014which refers to this bill that we are now debating. I would like to focus on schedule 6B, which is obviously part of this debate too, because schedule 8 brings in schedule 6B. Schedule 6B, which relates specifically to the tertiary education institutions, sets out the number of sections derived from this bill that will apply to tertiary education institutions. One that is included is section 51. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI will trouble the Minister to look at clause 51 of this bill\u2014through that convoluted process, we are now back to clause 51 of this bill\u2014because it sets out a number of interpretations, including the interpretation of \u201Cdirection\u201D. What troubles me about this, and I think where our tertiary institutions will be getting pretty concerned, is that through this convoluted pathway\u2014schedule 8, which amends the Education Act 1989, which brings in schedule 6B of this bill, which relates to the various clauses that affect tertiary institutions\u2014we get back to this issue of direction, where a Minister can direct an entity, under this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b73d000cb3bd42a79694ed1118a06b5b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The interpretation clause does not give the power of direction. It defines what \u201Cdirection\u201D means if it has got the power, and it has not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1305b8188f64311a8774977e944b57d\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: But the interpretation clause spells out the kinds of directions a Minister can give. If it was not intended to apply to tertiary institutions, why does schedule 6B specifically mention section 51? The Minister could assist here by showing us where in schedule 6B the tertiary institutions are specifically excluded from ministerial direction. It would certainly ease concerns if the Minister in the chair could point out which of the sections that apply to tertiary institutions in schedule 6B specifically exclude ministerial direction for a tertiary institution. Clause 51 shows the breadth of a direction that the Minister can give and it can be right down to employee level. We are talking about the potential possibility for the Minister to give a direction to a tertiary institution that could breach the issue of academic freedom. I see the Minister shaking his head. I would be pleased if he would take a call\u2014because I imagine that tertiary institutions are very concerned by this\u2014and point out where schedule 6B specifically excludes such direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff3441cc0c1644438f55128bb4fc0b2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff3441cc0c1644438f55128bb4fc0b2b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I would hope that tertiary institutions do not come up with that argument, because I would hope they would use their law faculties before they did that. Schedule 6B includes those things that do apply. If it is not in schedule 6B, it does not apply and the power of direction is not in schedule 6B. In other words, the power of direction is not in the schedule that applies to tertiary institutions. The power to direct is outside this schedule and therefore does not apply to tertiary institutions, so the Minister has no power to direct tertiary institutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208adaa4d644140aa88539ed6b7872503\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Why is there not an exclusion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217b5df7899c54cc181a6007fffafe6ab\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: It does not need an exclusion. Schedule 6B is an inclusive clause of what the powers are. It does not include the part of the bill that gives the power to direct. The fact that the interpretation clause is included is irrelevant. The interpretation clause does not relate to the power to direct; it only defines what direction means, should the power be in there. But the power is not in there. One would not go through the interpretation clause and take out every little word that is not included in the rest. This is an inclusive statement in schedule 6B, not an exclusive statement. If it is not in there, it does not exist. The power of direction is not included in schedule 6B. It is absolutely clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00229dedc170f86041fe81ec0c1cf3a8f947\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dedc170f86041fe81ec0c1cf3a8f947\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I will start by making a point of clarification. In a previous speech I spoke about the Southland Building Society, and on reflection I regret having made some statements about it. I want the record to reflect that I have every confidence in that organisation. It is a very well-run organisation with a very fine balance sheet, and I want the record to reflect that. Under this part I will talk about clause 222. I raise this issue now that we have Mr Cullen back in the chair because it is an area that needs some clarification, I think. It concerns me. I am not sure that what is written here can really be the Minister\u2019s intention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EAt the moment the heading of clause 222 states: \u201CExisting members exempt from qualification requirements\u201D. That is the issue that my colleague Pansy Wong raised, and I think it needs to be re-canvassed. If I am reading the legislation correctly, the new qualification requirements state that no one who has had a 2-year prison conviction or is an undischarged bankrupt can be a member of a board. My interpretation of clause 222 is that current board members who have that type of history can continue. If that is what the Minister intends, then I seek for him to take a call and clarify that, because I think it is a confidence issue. It worries me, and I am sure that others who read this clause and give it close scrutiny will also be concerned about it. We are really saying, in essence, that some board members at the moment who have had prison convictions of 2 years or more, or who are undischarged bankrupts, can be board members of Crown entities. I do not for a moment believe that that is the Minister\u2019s intention, but if it is I would like that to be clarified. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe next point I will raise is about clause 227, \u201CContinuation of existing employment\u201D. I have criticised this bill throughout the course of this debate for putting into legislation things that seem to be repetitious and unnecessary. I think this clause is another example of that. It states: \u201CA person who is, at the commencement of this section, an employee of a statutory entity, does not cease to be an employee because of the coming into force of this Act.\u201D Surely current employment law provides those protections now, and this is just more unnecessary drivel and repetition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe next clause I will talk to is clause 230, \u201CExisting insurance cover\u201D. Mr Key also raised that clause as being an issue of some importance. I am in two minds on this issue. Yes, I think on the one hand that board members should be indemnified. On the other hand they have a fiduciary responsibility to conduct the business with which they are charged in an appropriate manner. If they do that according to the charter of their entity, then indemnity insurance is fair. But I am reluctant to advocate that they should be indemnified if they make poor decisions or decisions that are quite clearly contrary to the charter of the entity. Why should we provide indemnity for board members who do things that are illegal, for example? That relates back to the first point I raised about clause 222, concerning people with criminal convictions. Let us be clear that a criminal conviction of 2 years\u2019 imprisonment is a very significant conviction. Someone on a board at the moment could, under clause 230, potentially be indemnified for conducting an illegal act while serving as a member. When I go on to clause 230(3), I am a little confused with regard to what is intended. Subclause (2) provides that existing insurance cover for members applies, but then subclause (3) provides: \u201CHowever, if the insurance cover expires, or the member, office holder, or employee is reappointed or re-employed, \u2026\u201D, the measure does not apply. That also needs to be clarified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce48747b6e824a6fa059bbb6db6c8d45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce48747b6e824a6fa059bbb6db6c8d45\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I ask the Minister of Finance whether he could please clarify how clause 218 in Part 7 relates to schedule 6B. I would also like him to clarify whether schedule 6B refers to clauses that apply to tertiary institutions\u2014whether that is the situation. I ask the Minister whether those clauses do not apply to tertiary institutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eadd831bdca448d5bcfe46ad0c626ccf\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an inclusive list of those that do apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cdc7ce9496749d58059b9551d0f8372\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: They do apply. Then I take it that the Archives Act 1957 does apply to tertiary institutions under this Part 7. I ask the Minister whether that is correct\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e307f9f66d3d4109a431593acd6365c1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec0cea2da02a4922a32fdf00d3313953\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014because it is included in schedule 6B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5b080773c444869ad72d5bfab382ec2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s being replaced, of course, very soon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b5a1a53533f49079a088d8290eb5e70\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: If it does apply, then there is something that Professor Stuart McCutcheon has brought to my attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022236a95a355264e1a9240eeafa5311a27\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Is that who you\u2019re speaking on behalf of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ede1fcff790b45eba05ae32e9fde5955\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yesterday the Minister of Education interjected and called the Vice-Chancellor\u2019s Committee a bunch of fairies, but that is typical of the sort of language that the Minister of Education uses to dismiss those who disagree with him. However, as Stuart McCutcheon said, an early impact of the change in this legislation will be to bring all tertiary education institutions under the Archives Act and the Public Records Bill, which means that potentially all teaching and research drafts will become public records. As he said, that would be a nonsense if it were strictly enforced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ENone the less, it does bring those bodies under the Archives Act. I have the Archives Act here, and I would just like to remind the Committee that section 2 of that Act provides that: \u201C \u2018Public archives\u2019 means all public records that have ceased to be in current use in the Government office in which they were originally made or received or in the Government office in whose custody they have been placed, or that have been deposited in the National Archives.\u201D, and \u201C \u2018Public records\u2019 means all papers, documents, or records of any kind whatsoever officially made or received by any Government office in the conduct of its affairs or by any employee of the Crown in the course of his official duties;\u201D. There are penalties under the Archives Act for destroying those public records without the permission of the Chief Archivist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere are two implications from that. One is the nonsense one, where\u2014as has been noted\u2014all teaching and research drafts etc. could be required to be held unless permission was given. The Minister is shaking his head, so I would like him to clarify that is not the case. The other implication is for intellectual copyright, which many universities potentially gain remuneration and financial benefit from, and individuals\u2019 copyright on research that is conducted while individuals are at a university. It is a grey area because public funding goes into it. But if we want to reduce pressure on the public purse and on taxpayers, then we should have a balance that does not damage the involvement of private investment in tertiary research and the development of intellectual property. It is not limited to universities; it extends to institutions like the Auckland University of Technology and Unitec.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAs an aside, it is an interesting situation that under this legislation universities, polytechs, and tertiary institutions are all classified as being the same, yet simultaneously the Government is pushing through this House a bill that will ban Unitec from being a university. On the one hand, those bodies are allowed to be, and have to be, all the same under this bill, while, on the other hand, the Government is pushing through another bill in a last-minute attempt to stop Unitec\u2014having crossed every hurdle placed in its path\u2014from becoming a university.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EHowever, I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why the Archives Act should apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002245523dabfca94ca0a19b11c386bbbf04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245523dabfca94ca0a19b11c386bbbf04\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E Spurred on by David Carter, I would like to offer the Committee another amendment. I found David Carter\u2019s words of encouragement\u2014and his enthusiasm for my $10 deposit in the Southland Building Society in particular\u2014after I had put forward my last amendment in relation to building societies so gratifying that I checked with officials to see whether there was anywhere else I could insert building societies into this legislation. I was delighted to find that there is an opportunity in schedule 8, which is covered by clause 236, in Part 8, which members are currently debating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe reason we need to insert an item relating to building societies into schedule 8 is that the Government has graciously agreed, with its Supplementary Order Paper 315, to remove from schedule 6B the item section 199, relating to bank accounts, from the requirements put on tertiary educational institutions. The unintended consequence of that is that the addition just made in the last part, which enables Crown entities to have a bank account with a building society, does not apply to tertiary educational institutions. I am not requiring tertiary educational institutions to have a bank account with a building society, but they should have the opportunity to open one, if they so wish. I know in particular that the Southern Institute of Technology would love to have an account with the Southland Building Society. I see the local member, Mark Peck, is nodding vigorously. I know that he is a strong advocate of both the building society in Southland and the institute of technology; they are two superb local institutions that I am sure every member in this Chamber supports.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ESo I am pleased to advise the Committee that the Government has generously agreed to my further amendment to insert in clause 201(1), after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D, the words \u201C, or any registered building society with which a Crown entity may establish, maintain, or operate a bank account under section 199 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Act 2004.\u201D That would give all tertiary educational institutions in New Zealand, both universities and polytechnics, the opportunity to open a bank account with their local building societies. I am sure there will be crowds in the streets applauding that initiative. I know that it will become a widely known initiative once David Carter takes a call to congratulate me yet again on providing a major step forward for the building society movement in New Zealand. I am sure that the building societies\u2019 $2.7 billion in deposits will grow rapidly as a result of this change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002223f5bb67232a441e99c2ab1db6040d92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223f5bb67232a441e99c2ab1db6040d92\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I do rise to thank Rod Donald for his amazing amendment. I have to say \u201CWell done!\u201D to him for having been here for so long\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262147ff0ddcc436499d339629e8dfe7c\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Eight long years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1e0139160aa48cfb6c28a2614fa44b7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I know. He has had 8 long years here in Parliament, and to have achieved two such significant milestones in a parliamentary career is something that the member must remember when he gives his valedictory speech in the not too distant future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI want to take the opportunity of asking the Minister of Finance to clarify two clauses for me. One is clause 216, which concerns gifts, and was deleted by the select committee. Clause 216(1) stated that any gift or property that is gifted to a Crown entity may be accepted or disclaimed by the Crown entity. The reason I raise this as an issue is that I have discussed this with my colleague John Key, who was on the select committee, and I have looked at some of the material that John Key received from officials at the select committee. There appears to have been no discussion at all as to why clause 216 was ever included in the legislation, and, even more revealing, there seems to have been no discussion or paper trail as to why it was subsequently excluded by the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe reason I raise this is that this deliberation by the select committee occurred at the same time that the honourable John Tamihere was embroiled in an absolute scandal regarding his receipt of gifts. I think at one stage he attempted to justify one of them to the New Zealand Parliament by saying it was not a gift but koha\u2014a couple of hundred thousand dollars of koha, as I remember. I just want the Minister\u2014I know that he will be embarrassed by this, and I do not mean to embarrass him too greatly, right on the eve of Christmas\u2014to take the opportunity to explain why clause 216 was ever included, and why subsequently it came out during the select committee process. I want to know whether there was any paper trail to suggest that the reason was that the Government did not want any further embarrassment associated with John Tamihere and his rather inventive approach towards the gifts that seem to come his way, even though he is inclined to say, when he is a not a member of Parliament\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220386ecc98ab64c96a5cdd011d91d1658\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: What clause is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022445d5b7a460a4214a4af9f179e6ab792\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 216. My point is that the honourable John Tamihere said that in no circumstances would he accept the koha, then subsequently, once the papers had revealed that he was too fine and upstanding a gentleman to accept the koha, lo and behold, we find that the koha had been paid to him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EMy second question for the Minister refers to clause 220, \u201CLocal Authorities (Members\u2019 Interests) Act 1968 does not apply to Crown entities\u201D. Again, I have no idea why that particular clause is included. I am led to believe that it may be associated with the register of interests that Ministers are required to fill out, which Michael Cullen is proposing that members of Parliament be required to fill out, and which local government members are now also required to fill out. Again, there appears to be one rule for most of the executive, and one rule for John Tamihere as a member of the executive. Mark Peck is shaking his head, but if I have been reading the newspapers correctly\u2014and I congratulate the National Business Review on running the story very well\u2014members of the executive are required to file an annual register of interests. Mark Peck might not have realised that, although he has been here for a long period of time and is shortly to leave this place, having never been a member of the executive. However, I do not wish to knock Mark too much, because he is not a bad guy. My point is that everybody in the executive fills out the ministerial register of interests, but John Tamihere did not. He defied the law. He did not want to reveal all his koha. Maybe we have found out about only one of them. Maybe there is a lot more to come when Mr White presents his report in the next day or two. But why was John Tamihere the only member of the executive who was exempt?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u00221832ac58aa264a2ca4ec8ec979997858\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221832ac58aa264a2ca4ec8ec979997858\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u002298cb163cde6b48fb8b7671e41b351791\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298cb163cde6b48fb8b7671e41b351791\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I cannot say how thrilled I am to have a second opportunity to speak to Part 7 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill under urgency, and I am absolutely delighted that I have been given another opportunity to speak after my first contribution. This contribution will be even more revealing than the first. I want to thank you, Mr Chairperson, from the bottom of my heart. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E I want to draw the Committee\u2019s attention to a very interesting clause in Part 7\u2014clause 235, \u201CExisting investments, borrowing, guarantees, indemnities, and derivatives\u201D. I see the Minister of Finance\u2019s ears have perked up. He is looking very engaged, and for those who cannot see him, he is flicking through the bill to make sure he has not missed anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ada788938a0d4c74b56670d53e1e1797\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: He looks very happy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222050d3ca37394aea971ecc7f76cda96a\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: He looks happy and contented\u2014he will be sitting on $1.5 billion of additional cash next year, over and above all his operating and capital expenditure. Members should be happy. I hope that, as he sits in the chair and has a moment to reflect, he will consider taking up my suggestion for the New Zealand people this year, which is that he gives every New Zealander $75 so that they can put a turkey on the table and a present under the tree, and we can all go to Christmas and be very happy. That would cost only\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226de482e00e274550bfa0a787b46c9b87\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: A turkey on the Table of the House would be very nice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0c2956ff82b400a8e9958f4cb562414\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Hughes should not talk about the members on his side of the Chamber in that way, because they are not turkeys. He should not call them turkeys. If he is going to call them turkeys he should do it in his Christmas card to me, so it can remain private and confidential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299ee74ab650c4e52bb7ff16171ffd3b3\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s on its way!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022412e9c8e3b6942e18a3bba28e0701165\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it\u2019s on its way. I go back to clause 235. What is interesting about clause 235 is that it states that the terms of investments, borrowing, guarantees, indemnities, and derivatives may be amended, and will be taken up when the Crown entity comes into place, or when this bill passes. The clause states further that those terms may be amended by the Minister of Finance after this bill goes through. So let us think about that scenario. The Crown entity undertakes a derivative transaction\u2014let us say, an interest rate swap where it has some borrowings, and decides that it is going to swap from a fixed rate liability to a floating rate liability. Then all of a sudden, after passing Part 7, and clause 235, of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, the Minister of Finance looks at that transaction and decides he wants to alter it, as he may, under Part 3. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENow, altering financial obligations does not come for free, and the Minister of Finance himself will know that, depending on interest rate movements and the various issues, there could be a significant cost in altering that transaction. If that were the case, and it may happen under this part, then I would question that if a financial liability is incurred by the Crown entity that changes or amends its derivative transaction, and it is then not taken up, or the alteration is made by the Minister of Finance, who is going to pay for the liability? Who will go to the Crown entity and say: \u201CWell, OK, you\u2019ve amended this derivative transaction, and there\u2019s a lot of money at stake here.\u201D? There may be hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Who will pay that liability? It is not at all clear from clause 235. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENow, I am not suggesting that the Minister of Finance is likely to alter the range of investments, borrowings, guarantees, indemnities, or derivatives that will be in existence when this law takes place, but it is possible. If it is possible I think the Minister should rise to his feet as we are sitting under urgency at about 20 past 11 on what is technically Tuesday, but most New Zealanders would know it is Thursday, to debate the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and tell the Committee who will pay the price of that alteration if he does amend a guarantee, a liability, a derivative, or anything in relation to a Crown entity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister is on his feet, I think it would be interesting if he could share with us whether he is likely to cast his eye over all these borrowings, investments, guarantees, indemnities, and derivative transactions, and whether he is likely to ask Treasury to provide him with a list of those. The transactions will be stated in the new statement of intent, as we saw earlier on in the bill. But I wonder whether the Minister will\u2014over his Christmas holiday, possibly\u2014ask Treasury to deliver to him a listing of all those transactions so he can cast his eye over them. It is possible that during his Christmas break he will have a look and see that there are some transactions he would like. I can see the Minister is eager to get to his feet and answer those questions, and I look forward to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022 data-id=\u00222b7286e3f9e745f0af9a0d4df89ff345\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b7286e3f9e745f0af9a0d4df89ff345\u0022\u003EHELEN DUNCAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229e637b75ec064566989082a6b10cc5ee\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000236\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 7 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022859d3bc775f94b3198bd9d2133587c70\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d44f6329cf4b4c0cab18e51ab0067a16\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 7 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a458a98251bf4b5bbea6357f7cf1be8d\u0022\u003EPart 8  Amendments to State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u002299720964ba63409887fdcf95c63bd7a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299720964ba63409887fdcf95c63bd7a1\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Part 8 is obviously a very small part of this 500-page bill. However, the fact that Part 8 is small does not make it any less important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022431fcd91023d4431a768d4584c5facf5\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Belies its importance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221869fb11d39f4aeb91a26853ac952903\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It belies its importance and, like a lot of small things in life, it is easy to take them for granted and to wonder whether they are as significant as big things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269c3cc65b2e5407c99903384eae111a6\u0022\u003ELindsay Tisch\u003C/span\u003E: Like Mark Peck.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8ba8aba63964769acfa329bd41fab70\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mark Peck\u2014yes. For instance, in All Black terms, people might not have taken Grant Batty, who was a very small All Black, seriously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4081dd3f60444219a5647d7e28911f3\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Dave Loveridge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2979c4d2c7843bfa80b1be5d52819dc\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Dave Loveridge is another example of a small All Black who could be taken for granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022376bc5cb0ab14980a4b2ae4794cf6a7b\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Gary Whetton.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207fa59076a954d12a2f3c65ba38a41e8\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Gary Whetton was not small.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca8241bf13884560ae94813ddfb5e6c8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Lindsay Tisch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212bac8a99ca64e2e99e0c4e5cece193c\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Lindsay Tisch is small, but he is not an All Black. He could be. One never rules someone out from being an All Black.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258857a677ffa4865ae5e502326067483\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: He used to be the ball in the game.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff4b3c4a210f46b6a42049b2815f6403\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I do not think one could say that Lindsay Tisch was the ball; he was the pride of the game.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EPart 8 is small but it has an interesting part to it, and that is clause 238. Part 8 amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act. New Zealanders will know there are\u2014roughly off the top of my head\u201417 State-owned enterprises in New Zealand and they range from power generators such as Meridian Energy, Genesis, and Mighty River Power, those sorts of enterprises, to the coal operator, Solid Energy, and New Zealand Post. There are a number of entities that fall within the State-owned enterprises group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EClause 238(2) is interesting in that it states: \u201CBefore entering into any collective agreement under the Employment Relations Act 2000, every State enterprise to which this subsection applies must consult with the State Services Commissioner over the conditions of employment to be included in the collective agreement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EFirstly, my understanding is that that clause is new. In other words, we have a situation whereby our 17 State-owned enterprises\u2014which are large organisations, many of which already have collective arrangements\u2014are now being told that under clause 238 their power will somehow be diminished by the dead hand of Government in this Public Finance (State Sector Management Bill) that is being rushed through under urgency at 25 past 11 in the evening. So in this situation, before a State-owned enterprise agrees to its collective arrangement it will have to tell the State Services Commissioner that it is about to negotiate a collective arrangement and what the conditions are within that collective arrangement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe first question that comes to mind is about what that will do to the process. What is it likely to do? Anyone who has been involved in collective arrangements will know that they can be quite slow and tedious to negotiate. They can be large, can involve quite a number of parties, and can certainly take a long, long time. So one can imagine situations whereby a collective arrangement is being negotiated on behalf of one of our 17 State-owned enterprises. That process could be dramatically reduced or slowed down because there could be a situation where the State Services Commissioner did not agree to the terms of the collective agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWe are now in the middle of an interesting little furore\u2014if one likes\u2014over Judy Bailey\u2019s salary, which is of concern to some people but not necessarily to others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224866dfc9b052488d8c9414d692002b32\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Small fry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b6e4084dd7e4499bcf1a8c2f3b0eb82\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Small fry\u2014yes. What is interesting about that scenario is that it is a debate over whether Judy Bailey should get $400,000, $500,000, $600,000\u2014or whether the number should have been $800,000. But that absolutely is chicken feed compared to the numbers that will be paid through a highly negotiated collective arrangement. So that is the first issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe second interesting issue it raises is the question of what happens in the instance where there is a dispute between the State-owned enterprise and the State Services Commissioner. Maybe the Minister might want to clarify this, but I cannot see what will happen when a State-owned enterprise is wanting to negotiate its collective arrangement and cannot agree with the State Services Commissioner over the terms of that collective arrangement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOne could imagine a situation like the incident with Television New Zealand and Judy Bailey. The board\u2014I have to say at this stage that I have some sympathy for the board\u2014is arguing\u2014[Interruption] A huge amount of its revenue may be gone, but a huge amount will come from a commercial activity. As I see it, on the one hand the directors are doing their job to preserve that income, but on the other hand they are trying to resolve a situation that clearly for political reasons may be uncomfortable or unfortunate. That situation is not impossible to imagine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u002270b367089d4544d1b5bd970af52d1463\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270b367089d4544d1b5bd970af52d1463\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I will also pick up on clause 238 in Part 8 of this Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, because it has huge implications. As I am aware, for the first time the Government is proposing with this legislation that if our State-owned enterprises are to negotiate a collective agreement with their employees, they must consult with the State Services Commissioner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EJust to be on the safe side, clause 238(3) states: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, apply subsection (2)\u201D\u2014that is the clause I just read out\u2014\u201Cto any State enterprise named in the Second Schedule.\u201D That means the second schedule of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. I am looking now at the second schedule of the State-Owned Enterprises Act, because the Committee needs to be reminded of the scope of New Zealand\u2019s activity, so to speak, that is covered by State-owned enterprises.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIf we look at the second schedule of the State-Owned Enterprises Act, we see that we are talking about electricity generating companies and Transpower. Now, they are at the heart of New Zealand\u2019s economic success, and we are talking about a whole range of them, especially those that have a huge impact on New Zealand such as those involved in our energy sector, not to mention the forestry sector. Landcorp farming is a large hunk of the agricultural sector. They are significant economic businesses, and energy companies and Transpower have a huge impact on New Zealand\u2019s economic success.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe Government is suggesting here that in those major economic entities, in those State-owned enterprises that have that significant impact on our economy, the State Services Commissioner will be able to interfere in their employment arrangements. \u201CState Services Commissioner\u201D is just another term for \u201Clackey of the Government\u201D, I think it is fair to say; I do not want to be unkind to the current State Services Commissioner, but obviously the person in that role does the Government\u2019s bidding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIt is important for Parliament to consider that the State-Owned Enterprise Act was passed back in the 1980s under the previous Labour Government. It set up those State-owned enterprises for one very good reason: to get such important business activities out of the clutches of politicians and Government. But what is this clause doing in this Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill? It is bringing that crucially important function about employment arrangements back within the realms of political interference. That is a very backward step. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe Minister in the chair, the Hon Margaret Wilson, who I am told is to become the Speaker of the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022baecedc591e64b74a4d1b994b72a4a4e\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: She is Speaker designate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c286f32888484135aa61bb21154e4b13\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Speaker designate\u2014OK. The Minister in the chair ought to have a real interest in legislation if she is to become the Speaker of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhy is the Government moving to bring back those important economic entities under political influence? A large chunk of the energy sector is owned by the Crown under schedule 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Why is the Government moving to bring back those important economic entities into a situation where the Government can meddle in their employment arrangements? One can only assume that it is because the Government wants to push its agenda, and we know from various parts of this bill what that agenda is: the Government wants to force those entities to employ certain people of certain racial backgrounds, and it wants to force the entities to address diverse interests in their employment arrangements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThose may be things this Labour Government considers important, and matters of ethnic origin are important in some areas, but when it comes to employment, employers should be colour blind. Employers in those vitally important companies like Transpower New Zealand Ltd, Mighty River Power Ltd, Meridian Energy Ltd, Landcorp Farming Ltd, should be colour blind. They should be employing people on the basis of their skills and of what they can contribute to the organisation. People should be equal in terms of their employment opportunities in these hugely important economic entities. The Minister in the chair should get to her feet and explain what the Government is seeking to do with section 8(2) inserted by clause 238.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u002239f4a79e1d8f493aa3c90de3871653a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239f4a79e1d8f493aa3c90de3871653a1\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to follow on from what Dr Lockwood Smith was saying on Part 8, because he is right. The implications of section 8(2) in clause 238 are important for the future in terms of what it does and what it drives. I would say that this is being driven by the unions. Dr Lockwood Smith failed to mention another really important State-owned enterprise, New Zealand Post Ltd. In 1986 the Lange-Douglas Government made a big mistake with State-owned enterprises, in that it did not sell them. They were only ever set up as a halfway house, as an interim measure to restructure old Government departments that were costing the taxpayers billions of dollars and turn them into successful commercial enterprises so they could be sold with maximum return to those taxpayers. Most of that money was used to reduce debt. We had crippling debt. We sold off those State-owned enterprises, privatising them and reducing masses of debt in the process. Unfortunately, we did not sell off enough of them. We did not sell off New Zealand Post or Television New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ELook at what has happened to Television New Zealand since the Government started meddling in its affairs and appointing its boards. In 1999-2000 Television New Zealand was still a successful company, returning a profit of $68 million, I think it was. Governments have used Crown entities as cash cows, sucking the money out of them to the extent now that the current Government is propping them up again with taxpayers\u2019 money. What a crime it is that such a successful company, returning such a good profit, is now reduced to going to the Government, cap in hand, to grovel for more taxpayers\u2019 money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWe will very soon again be amending the State-Owned Enterprises Act. When more legislation comes into force\u2014when more labour and employment legislation that brings back de facto compulsory unionism gets the royal assent\u2014we will see more amendments. This will be seen as being a way to boost unions like the Public Service Association, which has suffered hugely in terms of its members voting with their feet. So what do we do when we bring in State-owned enterprises like Meridian Energy Ltd, Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd, and New Zealand Post Ltd? We reduce hugely the ability of those commercial enterprises to compete in the market. They will be trying to compete, with their hands tied behind their backs, in terms of directives from the Government about what they can do regarding employment relations and collective agreements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ELet us face it, under this Government the only way employment agreements will be allowed to operate is as collective agreements. We will see the end of individual agreements, because under this Government employees are deemed insufficiently capable of negotiating their own agreements with their own employers. They have to go into a collective agreement, and because of the patronising attitude this Government has, they must have a union representative to negotiate that for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ELockwood Smith was quite right. The State Services Commission is a lackey of the Government. Under this Government, the State Services Commissioner will have to have his or her say on every collective agreement under the Employment Relations Act that any State-owned enterprise enters into. We have already seen the implications in terms of directives to public servants and employment opportunities for M\u0101ori. Pacific people are totally excluded. They do not matter, obviously, in the public service. I suppose they are generally included under ethnic minorities. This is the start of the slippery slope. Next will be the private sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022017730a14b9e4491990b61b55660ea11\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022017730a14b9e4491990b61b55660ea11\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I have recently been reading a study\u2014the most recent one\u2014of Queen Elizabeth I. One of the issues she had continually throughout her reign was the issue of religion, particularly the desire of her newly converted, in many cases, Protestant Ministers to delve deeply into the religious life of her subjects. Her comment to them was, and it is very relevant here: \u201CI have no wish to peer into the conscience or the soul of my subjects.\u201D Despite the best efforts of her Ministers, she managed not to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EHere we have a contrast. The bill before us, throughout its whole length\u2014and we are now looking at Part 8\u2014has a different philosophy entirely. That philosophy is an embracing desire by the State to peer down, and to peer into, every relevant section, as the Minister sees it, of the day-to-day life of State-owned enterprises. The last two speakers have been correct, because section 8(2) in clause 238 embodies again the strange industrial bargaining that we have seen in recent years in some segments of State operations, whereby there is never any proper negotiation between relevant parties\u2014namely, employer and employee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EInstead, above and beyond, with a draconian hand at times, stands the hand of the State. The reason for that, particularly in the cases that I have been a party to, is not quite known. There is no discernible reason why there should be a third party between two operating groups, namely the employer, who is given full powers under this legislation to agree, and those who are employed. Here there is the clearly expressed desire that \u201Cevery State enterprise to which this subsection applies must consult\u201D with the Minister\u2019s personal appointee in this regard, the State Services Commissioner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EMy experience of the States Services Commission is not that it has an even-handed, proper approach to industrial matters. In actual fact, as we all know, it complicates what should be a reasonable 2 or 3-year undertaking to resolve the industrial conditions under which people work, day to day. Instead there is the unknown where there should be certainty, and at all times there is a greater or lesser degree of political interference. That has always been so, but these provisions propose a strengthening of that relationship. We in New Zealand First believe that is not sound industrial negotiation. It intrudes another imperative into what should be a proper discussion about the future conditions and salary or wages of workers; that is, what the Minister thinks, in the form of the State Services Commissioner. As I said, this clause embraces the total, controlling philosophy that the bill displays. New Zealand First will oppose it vigorously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226abc0bb84cb9402cbd54e9c859ec6283\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, m\u014Drena, good morning honourable members. I call the honourable member Pansy Wong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u00221c337c4682f94a35b2290e5fb7e34dd1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c337c4682f94a35b2290e5fb7e34dd1\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E Good morning to you, too, Mr Chairman. We always appreciate you in the Chair, because you are very generous in ensuring that there is a thorough discussion during the Committee stage, which is very, very important. Even though Part 8, as my colleagues have said, may have only two pages, it refers to schedules and has huge significance in terms of the future financial well-being of State enterprises. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThere are very delicate issues around collective employment agreements. Clause 238 introduces an additional party, in the form of the State Services Commissioner, between the State enterprise and the union in negotiating a collective agreement. I am pleased to see that the Minister in the chair is the Hon Margaret Wilson, who is the architect of the Employment Relations Act and who also has a law background to her credit. I want her to explain to the Committee what section 8(2), inserted by clause 238, really means when it states that a State enterprise, before it enters into any collective agreement, has to consult the State Services Commissioner. What is the extent of that consultation? Will it simply be someone at, say, Transpower picking up the phone and telling the State Services Commissioner that he or she might want to introduce a new offer or incentive to a group of staff in Transpower that might not be extended to another? If the State Services Commissioner said that was not acceptable, would that be the extent of the consultation? Or would the State Services Commissioner have the authority to turn down, say, the offer the State enterprise intended to make? What is the obligation for the State enterprise to reject or accept that particular advice? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI am quite concerned about how much intrusion and authority the bill intends to give to the State Services Commissioner, given that section 8(3) in clause 238 states: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, apply subsection (2) to any State enterprise named in the Second Schedule.\u201D That is actually quite serious. Any organisation listed in schedule 2 may also be affected by that requirement. The fact that the Governor-General may extend the authority of the State Services Commissioner through Order in Council might actually mean that the Government today wants to give the State Services Commissioner a lot more authority in association with that word \u201Cconsultation\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI hope the Minister will take a call and tell us what the significance of the word \u201Cconsult\u201D is when it is preceded by the word \u201Cmust\u201D. What is the extent of the consultation? Is it just a chat, a written statement, a rejection, or a \u201Ctake it or leave it\u201D statement? Also, in what stages would the State Services Commissioner be involved in the actual negotiation of the collective agreement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0fde89464114a66aba783024a5fcf15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0fde89464114a66aba783024a5fcf15\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E Throughout the course of the debate, I have been railing about the repetition and the absolute drivel we have been asked to support by way of this bill. I made the point, and I think it bears repeating, that the public complains day in and day out about the size and cost of bureaucracy in this country and the sheer amount of red tape. I say to members that this bill is just another example of how out of touch the Government is when it seeks to pass this type of legislation. By my estimation, the bill could have been about a third of its size. The fact it is not is an indictment on the Government, which intends to legislate for every conceivable consequence, whether or not it is relevant and whether or not an existing law is already in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ESo members will probably wonder why I do not support Part 8, given that it has only four clauses and that out of 500 pages it takes up only one and a half. The reason I do not support it is that it concerns amendments to the State-Owned Enterprises Act. I caution members that \u201Csmall\u201D does not mean \u201Cnot significant\u201D. A couple of speakers have taken calls and dealt with the issue. The reality is that we all have to deal with the issue, because it is the only pertinent clause in the part. It has huge implications for the productive sector and for the rest of New Zealand\u2019s citizens, because we are now playing around with the economic powerhouse of our economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThis section deals with huge businesses, which, in lots of cases, run our infrastructure. What will be the situation if we come to an impasse whereby the entity concerned is recommending to, or has negotiated with, its employers certain terms and conditions, and the Government\u2019s lackey says that he or she has been told that the Government is not happy with that? This is the worst type of Government interference one could imagine. The Government is now legislating for huge levels of interference. Members of the Committee should think about that very carefully. That Part 8 has been truncated into one and a half pages does not make it insignificant. Why is this happening? The short answer is that this Government wants control. It craves control. It can do nothing without having control. It is trying to control and manipulate its own PC agenda. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222759f292dd3a473ba9b7bb074b6e81b8\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s disgraceful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ff1a16ae3fd43e6b36978aa31f10a6f\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: It is disgraceful. If it were not for the fact that we are here at 11.50 on what is technically Tuesday morning but what the rest of New Zealand knows is Thursday morning, after being in this Chamber until midnight last night and starting here again at 9 o\u2019clock this morning, under urgency, I might have more energy to argue this point more powerfully. The fact is that this part has significant implications for New Zealand. New Zealanders are being snowed by it. I have asked what will happen if we get an impasse. Who will tell the people of New Zealand they will be cold this winter\u2014if we are talking about an entity that deals with some of our power generation\u2014because the Government wants to interfere?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022 data-id=\u00225d143106c0104511bd58c88a9aa0854d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229df41e27-6082-4bc7-9fda-bab499cb9246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d143106c0104511bd58c88a9aa0854d\u0022\u003EHELEN DUNCAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002272dc48fd55dc4d958aed31837dcf1d42\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b3525c40a9a94a048e411ebf22585954\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 8 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 8 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022086a121d42c94b518eebbd101995bc27\u0022\u003ESchedules \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000291\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022993d54f9451f48df895fd0b719e95e37\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224aadd22f5c8e43139c12bf903331cf6b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000292\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 2, and the following amendments in his name to Part 1 of schedule 2, be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000293\u0022\u003Eto omit the item relating to section 195B(5) of the Education Act 1989;\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000294\u0022\u003Eto omit the item relating to the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000295\u0022\u003Eto omit from the item relating to section 39A(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 the expression \u201Csection 44\u201D, and substitute the expression \u201Csection 45O\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226269ecf1c9ca4dbc9798369de2ce47f0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002228111723e98943a3b056cb4f9d2a6c30\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f58d9d69b08941b29c7e45b05569395a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ec3b00a395e449dfaebac461cec279a2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000296\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to Part 1 of schedule 5 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000297\u0022\u003Eto insert \u201CGuardians of New Zealand Superannuation\u201D in the list of Crown agents.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bc313d265f034076bc63f6e1a50605cf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000298\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to Part 2 of schedule 5 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000299\u0022\u003Eto omit \u201CGuardians of New Zealand Superannuation\u201D from the list of Autonomous Crown entities.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002289fd9f190b8340c2a899cad37835df9d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000300\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222aa53bf9d11945b7b23c10d847fe6e95\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac33f91b863741f8aff0c9f5bb056588\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I remind members that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of the vote. I refer members to Speaker\u2019s ruling 61/2. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002281e202c7af544710a8b363faa5048f94\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000302\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ba2b84e5c8174b5b943d34cec94a4da0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224b3784948d2b4aa09e8db3490e7d1d9b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000303\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cfb551a284fe41b985bea3de9188c187\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022432e4ac341d7467aba5ed097a8470b5f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 6A as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6A as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000304\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6B be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d54358ee14b245e0b6df6e14a55a8d9f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022079076bbc3a14b159e9b8e00a776ebea\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 6B as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6B as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226b6a59e0edff4cc5959b992dc7e2f819\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 7 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 7 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000305\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to schedule 8 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000306\u0022\u003Eto insert, after the item relating to section 195B(5) of the Education Act 1989, the following item:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000307\u0022\u003Einsert in section 200(1), after the words \u201Cregistered bank\u201D, the words \u201C, or any registered building society with which a Crown entity may establish, maintain or operate a bank account under section 199 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Act 2003.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225d5483cd5456450094cdccea178ea95e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000308\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 8, and the following amendment in his name to schedule 8, be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000309\u0022\u003Eto omit subsection (7) from the item relating to section 19 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e173b99537c340c98e6dfe9fe8a7a9da\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fbb9b6c5c21149e7abba490373dd1b02\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 8 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000310\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 9 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222d91eccb86ca41668e84a983908a89fe\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002268ab2cf6e20943d2bd4f9b051cfd8235\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 9 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 9 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002263837697a27d43bb9e6d09c2b8857348\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00222096d31452d64b6eaac1b4789bb29d1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222096d31452d64b6eaac1b4789bb29d1b\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E We are engaging in the title debate on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. There are a number of parts of this bill that I think New Zealanders, when they reflect on them during their Christmas holidays, will have major concerns about. The first concern will be around the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which is now to be embedded in the Public Finance Act. We should take just a moment to reflect on our history and on why the Fiscal Responsibility Act played such an important part in the backdrop of New Zealand\u2019s financial management. Let us remember that in 1990 when National came into office, the then Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, was delivered a set of books by a Government that, frankly, had cooked them. Those books were full of lies and deceit. They were not accurate, not correct, and not a reflection of the financial health of our country. They were quite the opposite of that, and they were delivered by a Labour Government that was very happy to have a set of books\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293e3c7ba117543db9b885227037c9ffd\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Cullen had his fingers all over them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295cb04b05b844dfb903e9df1f374fcf6\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. Dr Cullen\u2019s fingerprints were all over those books, and they were a disgrace. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ERuth Richardson stood tall, and she said that books like that would never be presented to the public of New Zealand again. She said a future Government should never have to come in and inherit a situation that was so badly portrayed to the people of New Zealand, and an incoming Government should not be cheated and deceived by a set of accounts that it should be able to rely on. That was the history of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was a tremendously important piece of legislation. That legislation went on to set out a whole number of conditions that are met today on everything, including the Fiscal Strategy Report. There is some transparency about the way the Government is to spend money, and, more important, about its debt levels and its intentions as it goes forward in managing the Crown accounts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EWhat this Government is going to do if it passes this legislation is to surrender the position that the Fiscal Responsibility Act had as a pre-eminent piece of legislation, by burying it deep in a 500-page document so that it does not see the light of day. It was embarrassed by the fact that the Fiscal Responsibility Act was brought in by a National Government because of the actions of a Labour Government in years gone by. It does not like the fact that it presented a cooked set of books to an incoming National Government, and now it is going to render the Fiscal Responsibility Act not into stand-alone legislation, not into something that stands proud and tall to guide our country, but into something that is buried within a 500-page document that is being rushed though in urgency. When New Zealanders think about the implications of that, they will be not only alarmed but concerned and very disappointed, indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI think that New Zealand is taking a retrograde step with this move. The Government should reflect on that and leave the Fiscal Responsibility Act as independent legislation, so that it can do its job, and do it properly. The Government of New Zealand has a huge responsibility to get this stuff right. Every day the Government is out there, taxing New Zealanders. It has $46 billion of taxation revenue coming in. Every day the Government is out there, stripping New Zealanders of the incentive to work hard and be paid a fair day\u2019s pay for doing a fair day\u2019s work. This Government is an overtaxing Government. That is what it is, and it is not proud to have the Fiscal Responsibility Act show exactly that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThere are some other elements of the Public Finance Act that I want to make particular reference to, in terms of the aggregation of output classes. When the Public Finance Act came in, in 1989, it was landmark legislation. It set out best practice for the New Zealand State sector to follow. That Act played a significant part in the transformation of the economy. We reap many of the benefits of having a stronger economy today because we have managed to get a very important part of our economy, the State sector, working properly and firing correctly. What is to happen is that under the new legislation we are to abandon the specific output classes, and we are to start moving towards a measurement term known as outcomes. We all know that those outcomes will be woolly and grandiose. They will sound fantastic, but when the day of accountability comes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d019d2bc20ec4b75bfbd393405384790\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: All spin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e0fb4a657104f48ab5c6f9ece740a86\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is all spin. This is a Government that likes spin. That is why I know for a fact that yesterday the library bought a new book on weasel words. Steve Maharey is putting out a grandiose document on what he has done over the last 5 years, and the library needs to detox it and understand it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022eaf06c9a9462457d80a8e95ef87b4f7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eaf06c9a9462457d80a8e95ef87b4f7e\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to the title of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, I think we have to reflect back over the history of this legislation. I was one of the few who was in this Parliament in 1990, prior to the passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I was one of the Ministers who faced the consequences of the dishonesty of the outgoing Labour Government. That Government presented a Budget, and Dr Cullen was one of the finance Ministers involved. It was Mr Caygill who presented the Budget but Dr Cullen was his Associate Minister. They presented a Budget to this Parliament that claimed, from memory, a $79 million surplus. When the books were opened after the election, far from a $79 million surplus, this country faced a deficit, climbing to $5 billion. Back in those days that was a large chunk of our GDP, because it was a smaller GDP in those days. The consequences of that were just colossal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe incoming National Government determined that that should never happen again, that it should not be possible for a Government to deceive the taxpayers of this country, the public of this country, the way the outgoing Labour Government did in the late 1980s. That is why National introduced the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, and that Act has served this country well. It has provided the opportunity for everyone involved in the process of Government, for taxpayers and citizens of this country, to see the Government\u2019s books opened regularly, to see how the financial affairs of their country are going. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhat we see with this bill is a moving of that iconic legislation and the burying of it within the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. We have to ask ourselves: what is Labour trying to do here? We know that Labour does not like scrutiny and transparency. We know that Labour likes to be able to fudge things. We know that Labour likes to be able to interfere. If we look at this bill we see it coming through. The Minister will be able to give more directions than has been possible in the past. Our State sector reforms in this country during the 1980s and 1990s were recognised worldwide as being at the cutting edge of good government. What we are seeing now is this Labour Government saying: \u201COh, we want to have more opportunity to meddle here.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIt seems that the Labour Party loves getting its political tentacles into these things, and this legislation provides for much more ministerial direction. It will enable the Government to fudge things much more because the output classes can be aggregated with this legislation. There will be less transparency. We know that Labour likes handing out money. Look at its Community Employment Group handouts that have embarrassed it so much, with the hip-hop tours, and so on. We know that Jim Anderton\u2019s handouts, his corporate welfare, have had the Audit Office saying there are some real problems around the handing out of this money. We know that Labour loves doing it, and wants a legislative framework that fudges all of this much more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003ENational is saying that it is bad for this Government to be making our financial affairs in the State sector less transparent, to be providing for greater political interference. It is sad for this country that we are dealing to iconic legislation like the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I suppose, when we think about it, Dr Cullen hates the fact that the Hon Ruth Richardson was the author of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Dr Cullen hates to have an iconic piece of legislation with the name of a Minister like the Hon Ruth Richardson on it. The best way to change that is to repeal the legislation and bury it in this Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that will bear his name. That kind of pettiness does not serve this country well. The Fiscal Responsibility Act was serving this country well. It could have been amended slightly, perhaps to sharpen up some of the procedures, but the transparency was hugely important. Its iconic status was hugely important. I suspect what we are going to get from Labour, if it ever wins another election, is something like a \u201CSocial Responsibility Bill\u201D that will have all the soft, woolly, wonderful stuff that these left-wing Labour politicians want to have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bb6a5a583c14fabb8f5e6b28b70f480\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: The PC Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206578ffdc8b6451b8f7f84565d0af003\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague Brian Connell says it will be the PC Act. It will be politically correct diatribe. National is opposed to this legislation, not because of some of the ideas being sought but because the detail is bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u002261cfe472ae86494aaa0c89a1c66d9e08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261cfe472ae86494aaa0c89a1c66d9e08\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the title, Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. New Zealand First sees this legislation as an all-embracing, controlling, inquisitive framework, developed under the present group of Ministers. This could take effect from 25 January 2005 and indeed is an important Act in the innate traditions of the controlling Labour Party. To a degree, many of the organisations that were created by the Labour Government in the late 1980s, and that continued through the 1990s, will not find a great deal of change in some sections. But there is one group in this country that does believe earnestly that there is change\u2014the tertiary education institutions. I want to take the Committee back to why that might be so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe Education Act of 1989 very clearly expressed the intention under that Act of giving as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions, as needed. Section 161 states: \u201C(1) It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.\u201D Section 161(4) states: \u201CIn the performance of their functions the Councils and chief executives of institutions, Ministers, and authorities and agencies of the Crown shall act in all respects so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in this section.\u201D The question is: where is the statutory duty to preserve and enhance institutional autonomy and academic freedom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI quote Professor McCutcheon, who was reported in the New Zealand Herald this week as stating: \u201CIn a democratic society we cannot allow state control of our free-thinking institutions.\u201D When the Minister in the chair last night was queried as to the intention of Part 3, \u201CPreliminary provisions relating to Crown entity reform\u201D, and the actual impact of that provision, there was no answer. There was no answer to the questions about clause 46 in that part, which talks about reforming the law. The questions: \u201CWhat law, what intentions, and when?\u201D were not answered at all. Again I turn to the comments made by Professor McCutcheon. His answer to that question was this: \u201CNo nation in the Western world has universities under state control. The pillars on which New Zealand academia is built are being eroded by creeping Government control.\u201D That was his answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWe know that this move is but part one of a two-phase action on the part of the Government. It is proper that universities should be very, very concerned as to where part two will take them. Advice has been given to Ministers and changes have been proposed that are not revealed in this bill, and that is the unanswered part of the preliminary provisions in Part 3. That will be revealed in time\u2014probably a year from now, should the Government, unworthy as it is, be returned to where it is now. The conflict that those proposals would cause in our community and our academic society will take place for the first time then. That intention in this bill is dishonest in regard to academic institutions. Personally I cannot conceive as to why that should be so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIt was so strange to hear Mr Mallard, one of the three Ministers involved, say that most taxpayers would think that the spending of taxpayers\u2019 money should be transparent and there should be accountability. We have been in the House week after week and have heard those very issues raised here. It has been shown that under the present provisions, the accountability of some institutions has not been at all clarified and it has not been an issue for Ministers. The Hon Bill English, who sits to my right, has said over and over again, in regard to the case in Christchurch, that that is not so. This deserves further attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022597ca8387fa64169b103743c650f010c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022597ca8387fa64169b103743c650f010c\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on clause 1 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, which should rightly be called the \u201CPublic Finance (State Sector Control) Bill\u201D. The Government thinks that control and management are synonymous. The honourable member Jim Peters was absolutely right when he argued on behalf of academic freedom. This legislation breaches the spirit of the Education Act 1989. No good reason has been put forward as to why sections 160 and 161of the Education Act 1989 should be overridden by this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe Vice-Chancellors Committee has met with the Government on innumerable occasions on this matter, but it has not been listened to, and yesterday in the Chamber the Minister of Education dismissed that committee as a bunch of fairies. That is how the Minister of Education, who has had the privilege of a tertiary education, treats academic freedom. It is an absolute disgrace. The Minister argued that the status quo is preserved. If the status quo is preserved, why do we have page after page of amendments to the Education Act 1989 in this legislation? If the status quo is being preserved, why do we have those amendments? Why are we bringing tertiary institutions under the same executive control as other Crown entities for which academic freedom and autonomy are not an issue? They are an issue with tertiary institutions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAdequate measures are already in place for accountability and transparency in the spending of taxpayers\u2019 money, it is just that this Government has not bothered to ensure that that accountability is put in place. For example, Christchurch Polytechnic, The Open Polytechnic, and various w\u0101nanga are under investigation in relation to conflicts of interest. Nothing ever happens unless an Opposition member brings it to the attention of the public and the media, and then the Government steps in with the appropriate audits that should have been conducted properly in the first place. That is one major issue in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe other major issue is that no good reason has been put forward for the Fiscal Responsibility Act not remaining as a stand-alone law. The bill as it is now is considerably better than the bill that went to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and New Zealand taxpayers have the Clerk of the House to thank for that. He made a very strong submission because under the bill that this Government sent to the select committee, it wanted to be able to spend public money without the authorisation of Parliament. Because of the Clerk\u2019s strong submission and his arguments we have at least got back to the situation where money should be spent only with the authorisation of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EHowever, the executive has not been restricted enough. It still has the unfettered power to spend money. No measures have been brought in to prevent that. We could have built on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. We could now be debating a taxpayers\u2019 Bill of Rights under which every bit of Government spending of public money is subject to a value-for-money test, and where there are constitutional restraints on the spending of public money, like targeting it to not increasing the rate of inflation or population growth, and ensuring that to go above that there has to be a referendum with more than two-thirds of the population in favour. We could be debating those issues, but, instead, we are passing legislation that considerably waters down the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Yesterday the Minister of Education and Minister of Finance blathered on about the need for transparency and accountability in the spending of public money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002257a1828d921c498184fa24abae08d291\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257a1828d921c498184fa24abae08d291\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E As we debate the title and commencement of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, I want to say at the outset that this bill will deliver less transparency to the spending of taxpayer money. This bill delivers less transparency because this Government has been embarrassed so many times by the rorts and rip-offs that have occurred under its policy. The Committee needs to realise that what we are talking about here today is really the \u201CFiscal Responsibility (Abolition) Bill\u201D. I feel very strongly about that because I was the member who came in at a by-election after Ruth Richardson had shepherded through this House the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994. I know the history of that legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ENational won the general election in 1990 and Ruth Richardson was appointed the Minister of Finance. When the National Government got to see the country\u2019s books, it found that the New Zealand people had been hoodwinked. What had been declared by the Associate Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, to be a Budget surplus of some $79 million was, in fact, a massive Budget deficit of around $5 billion. Without doubt those facts had been kept from the New Zealand public. When Ruth Richardson saw them she was determined to ensure that the people of New Zealand would never be hoodwinked in that way again. So the last piece of legislation that she wanted to see passed in this House was the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which I think finally passed in July 1994. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThat legislation was iconic. Not only has it served New Zealand exceptionally well for a decade, but also Ruth Richardson was then invited to countries all around the world\u2014to other democracies that saw the benefit of being honest with people and showing them the true facts as to the health and robustness of the economy. Ruth Richardson took that legislation to a number of other countries, which have followed us and enacted similar fiscal responsibility legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWe see now, after 5 long years of a Labour Government, that the Government does not want transparency. It is totally embarrassed by the rip-off that has occurred at the Christchurch Polytechnic, with $6.5 million going to a company of which one Vicki Buck, the well-known former mayor and large Labour Party supporter, was a significant shareholder. More recently, we saw this headline in the Dominion Post only a week ago: \u201CJobs machine out of control\u201D. That headline was referring to the way Jim Anderton has absolutely wasted around $50 million of taxpayers\u2019 hard-earned money on corporate welfare. Audit New Zealand asked Jim Anderton\u2019s \u201Cjobs machine\u201D what study had been done to evaluate the success of the $50 million that Mr Anderton splashed around the country, earning himself photo opportunities in our newspapers. It was staggering to learn that no evaluation has been carried out. The major reason for that admission is that Jim Anderton and his officials do not even have a list of the people who have received the money. That is just a staggering admission that his Government has no respect for the spending of public money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI say to members today that history will repeat itself. After the next election, when the new National Government resumes the Treasury benches, we will see\u2014as happened in 1989 and 1990\u2014that the legislation we are debating has been largely designed to make sure that the public of New Zealand do not know the truth. The Fiscal Responsibility Act has worked well, and it should remain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u00227e117081b2fd42b7873cec368b7b90e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e117081b2fd42b7873cec368b7b90e2\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to cover a few points that the member Deborah Coddington mentioned during her contribution on the title clause of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. Firstly, I think there are a number of different issues in relation to tertiary education. We need to face the reality that unless a tertiary education facility is privately owned, then the only other option is that it be publicly owned. If it is publicly owned, then obviously the Crown accounts, which capture on a consolidated basis all assets and liabilities of the Crown, must record the assets and liabilities of our various universities and tertiary institutions. One of the submissions the Finance and Expenditure Committee received from the tertiary sector basically suggested that that should not happen. But the select committee explored that suggestion in some depth and found that it has no factual basis. Therefore, the assets and liabilities of tertiary institutions obviously must go into the Crown accounts. There is no doubt about that, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ETo link that to the question of academic freedom is, therefore, purely a nonsense. Just because the Crown incorporates in its accounts the assets and liabilities of those institutions, it does not ipso facto follow that the Crown is interfering with academic freedom. [Interruption] I have read the whole bill, and I was also at the select committee when we heard the submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab106b1fd77e40889ab2c3b502bdb0bc\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: Read the Education Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4b5124b91c0454f9a892cafbf5079ba\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: The member suggests that I read the Education Act. I was just about to say that the relationship between the institutions and the Government is, of course, set out in that Act. As far as I am aware\u2014and members may correct me if I am wrong\u2014nothing in that Act suggests in any way that the Government has the ability to interfere with the academic freedom of our universities. That is the very point I was making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe third point concerns accountability. Here I find myself in strong agreement with Deborah Coddington and Bill English. It is a major concern that when taxpayers\u2019 funds are paid across to tertiary education institutions\u2014Christchurch Polytechnic included\u2014there ought to be proper accountability. Looking at outcomes really goes to the very heart of what this legislation is about. What outcome, at the end of the day, has the taxpayer received from Christchurch Polytechnic for the money that has been put in? The answer is: a lemon. That was a rotten deal for taxpayers. Therefore, they are quite legitimately saying that the legislation is in place, but the next step is to make sure that we implement it properly and use a bit of common sense in terms of not putting money into dopey ideas for programmes that are run by dopey people and have dopey outcomes. That is really an absolute no-brainer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe other issue Deborah Coddington touched on that I thought was quite interesting is whether this legislation should make reference to certain other things. One of those things is what should happen when the Crown collects more revenue from taxpayers than it needs for its budgeted expenditure. In the state of Colorado, in the United States, the equivalent legislation has a clause stating\u2014I have not actually read it, but it goes something like this\u2014that if the state collects more tax revenue than it had budgeted at the beginning of the Budget cycle to spend, it can use that revenue in only one way: to compensate for shortfalls from prior years. The law then states that once that condition is satisfied, any surplus must be given back to taxpayers by way of a tax cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWould that not be a great idea for New Zealand? The ACT party should fully support that proposition, because it is a low-tax party. How would we ever get there? In Colorado, they got there through a citizens initiated referendum. That is a cause some party might like to take up: a citizens initiated referendum in this country about legally stipulating\u2014and this would go way beyond even Ruth Richardson\u2019s legacy\u2014that the Crown should set its Budget at the beginning of the year and live within it; that the Crown has the right to collect the revenue necessary to satisfy the Budget, but that if there is something over, as has been the case in previous years, it should give it back to the hard-working taxpayer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022 data-id=\u00222b1f5267db7a41a9bfb3b97fdfeb579e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b1f5267db7a41a9bfb3b97fdfeb579e\u0022\u003EGEORGINA BEYER (Labour\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00220630eb5934594972aea6a99393f9e012\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220630eb5934594972aea6a99393f9e012\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I start by saying that I believe that the correct title of this bill is the \u201CNational Party Envy Bill\u201D. That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the Government is repealing the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That Act, as we have heard from other speakers, is seen as iconic. It puts the brakes on Government expenditure, provides some control, and provides some confidence to the general public that the Government is spending money in accordance with some conditions and restraints. That it is being repealed now is an absolute travesty. Let me make it clear to the Committee that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is outstanding legislation, and the reason it is being repealed is simply envy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EWe are told by the proponents of what is taking place that we should not concern ourselves, because parts of the Fiscal Responsibility Act are being incorporated into this Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I say to those people that perception is reality, and that if we repeal this Act we will do a lot of damage to investor confidence. I think that is something New Zealand simply cannot afford to have happen. Our international reputation as a place where people can invest with confidence is intact at the moment, but unless people continue to have confidence, that reputation will be damaged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EWe should be in no doubt that Michael Cullen and his cohort are enthusiastic spenders. Some members of this Chamber will recall the fact that the books in 1990 were cooked by the outgoing Labour Government. The person at the heart of that was none other than Dr Michael Cullen. [Interruption] It is right. Now he is asking this Committee to accept that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is no longer needed. He is asking this Committee to condone it being repealed. That is why the National Party will vote against this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe other point I raise is the arrant, PC nonsense around leadership and management capability in the public sector. We are now being asked to legislate for standard human resource management practice. Any organisation worth its salt would engage in succession planning, career planning, equal opportunities, and minimum ethics standards, but this Government says that we now have to legislate for that. That is the major reason why this bill is 500 pages in length. The amount of repetition and arrant nonsense that I find when I look at this bill leads me to believe that an alternative title could simply be the \u201CPC Act\u201D. This Government is pushing its own political agenda and PC nonsense through this bill, and the rest of the country is being asked to swallow it. I can tell members that the National Party certainly does not accept that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022 data-id=\u0022957373bc4f264249915afa737f089ce2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022957373bc4f264249915afa737f089ce2\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdaee2d3c98f47cda63947da387e3011\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdaee2d3c98f47cda63947da387e3011\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E The title of this bill is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. [Interruption] If the member of the Labour Party wants to make a constructive contribution, he should stand up and do more than move the end of the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe title of the bill is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, yet I think the Government, or the Minister in charge of this bill, has forgotten the meaning of public finance. It means taxing the public and accounting for spending. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI will raise two points about Part 1 that have become quite obvious during the Committee stage, although we have not received answers from the Minister. We found out that the Clerk of the House had saved the day for the supremacy of Parliament by forcing a raft of changes to Part 1 in the first draft of the bill. As it stood, the bill would have given the executive unbridled power to spend without accountability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe second point that National felt equally strongly about was the collapse of the independent legislation, the Fiscal Responsibility Act. We learnt from the Hon Lockwood Smith, a former Associate Minister of Finance, that the real reason why the Hon Michael Cullen is so hell-bent on collapsing the Fiscal Responsibility Act is it was introduced under the name of the Hon Ruth Richardson. That bill has served New Zealand well for the last 10 years by keeping various Governments accountable for how they have spent the public\u2019s money. Although we are grateful to the Clerk of the House for forcing a substantial rewrite of Part 1, we are still not very happy with the fact that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is losing its independent status. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EPart 2 of the bill, which amends the State Sector Act, raises serious concerns because of the use of the phrase \u201Cwhole-of-Government approach\u201D. When the Labour Government talks about a whole-of-Government approach, it sends a very strong message about interference in the independence of the public service. The public service is supposed to be apolitical and supposed to be accountable for achieving outcomes that can be expressed and translated into outputs that are meaningful, and that can also be assessed as to whether they are successful. The phrase \u201Cwhole-of-Government approach\u201D should lead to major concern. It has the connotation of mega-ministries being created, or of the State Services Commissioner, together with Treasury, simply overriding the independence of various Government departments as they carry out obligations and responsibilities under their charge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWe are not convinced by a Labour Government whose policies have, in the first instance, caused some of the worst scandals we have seen. They were unravelled by two hard-working National MPs. The Hon Bill English unravelled the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology case concerning community education, and Katherine Rich looked into all those hip-hop tours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002290da9f6401044f65a5a2aade62c3ee70\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000362\u0022\u003EClause 2 not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226daeebbcd0414509800af4fede2cc9ff\u0022\u003ENew clause 2  Commencement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000364\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225bfa180970474e2fbe30ba63a1656250\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew clause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000365\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00226768f1ef499c4ebf98958f92c568284a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226768f1ef499c4ebf98958f92c568284a\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 4), the Crown Entities Bill, and the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 316.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u002273d2f76e41e84058a8d401a06344b54c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273d2f76e41e84058a8d401a06344b54c\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note that there was a hesitation on the part of the junior whip in casting two votes on behalf of the Progressives. He was unsure whether he was casting, or had the authority to cast, votes in favour, so I seek clarification with regard to that. There was a hesitation, and I see that he is on the phone at the moment. Maybe that matter can be clarified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00229c79fcd321d1405a82ba9db6a9bc7944\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c79fcd321d1405a82ba9db6a9bc7944\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the honourable member that it is entirely up to the members themselves as to how they cast the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u002293d2d10f7f4248d090f7949962c5b04d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293d2d10f7f4248d090f7949962c5b04d\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your clarification on how members can vote. I am unaware of whether members in casting votes can cast a vote for the time being or for now. Votes are cast on the vote, but the Labour member in casting the votes for the Progressive party said: \u201CTwo votes, at least for now.\u201D, or words to that effect. I do not believe that one can record votes that are not actually made definitively with regard to the question at hand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022da205ccfe6834b4a951b9ce0f5890135\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da205ccfe6834b4a951b9ce0f5890135\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I say that a member must just cast the vote. So if the member did say that, I would ask him to desist in future and to make sure votes are cast correctly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022481d8168d36d4299bb22114a2b82d34e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022481d8168d36d4299bb22114a2b82d34e\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I brought up earlier, which my colleague Dr Smith has reiterated, is whether the junior whip had authority, considering the hesitation he showed at the time, to cast that vote when he said: \u201CI hope in the meantime.\u201D Did that mean that he had authority to cast it, and that the vote was in order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa0319806b954335aff525ed8b52cd9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa0319806b954335aff525ed8b52cd9e\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to clear it up for the Committee. I have the authority to cast two Progressive votes in favour of the motion. We were slightly distracted at the time by the late arrival of another member, and that may have been why the members thought I was hesitating on the Progressive vote. There are two Progressive votes in favour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002233d6d0ce252842458ccb8475648c7d71\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233d6d0ce252842458ccb8475648c7d71\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the honourable member for clarifying the situation. It is much appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221692ee5c7ed040308e84ecf9571303ff\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000375\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000376\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002234fcec809fa1452ba0477e767b8b8a24\u0022\u003E Third Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022be6c2f9abfd5408e9705299854f3c866\u0022\u003E Third Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe39489ea2a5496d9b8865c0dcb465bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe39489ea2a5496d9b8865c0dcb465bb\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 4), the Crown Entities Bill, and the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The provisions contained in what was formerly the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill represent the most significant enhancement in public sector management in New Zealand for over a decade. I thank members of the House for their cooperation in progressing this important legislation through the House. This is the Government\u2019s legislative response to the early work done by the Hon Simon Upton, enhanced by the recommendations from the 2001 Review of the Centre. That review concluded that the New Zealand public sector management system was fundamentally sound, but identified three areas for improvement: first, achieving better integrated and people-focused service delivery; second, addressing fragmentation and improving alignment; and, third, enhancing the people and the culture of the State sector. This legislation benefits New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThe Public Finance Amendment Bill reinforces the existing principles and objectives of the Public Finance Act and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, strengthens accountability to Parliament, and improves flexibility. It will ensure that Parliament gets a wider range of information about what is intended and about the actual performance of departments. Similar requirements around statements of intent will also apply to non - public service departments, the Reserve Bank, and Crown entities, ensuring a consistent approach to reporting across the State sector. Greater consistency in reporting is one key feature of the bill that will contribute to reducing fragmentation and improving alignment across government. Multi-class output appropriations will increase flexibility for Ministers and departments, and enable Parliament to focus its scrutiny on significant policy changes. Requiring the approval of the Minister of Finance for those appropriations will provide a safeguard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EIntegration of the Fiscal Responsibility Act has been one of the more debated aspects of the Public Finance Amendment Bill. The Government firmly believes that consolidating the legislation regarding public finances will ensure that the current level of transparency is maintained by future Governments, and that New Zealand continues to demonstrate international best practice in fiscal reporting. New Zealanders rightly expect that people working in any Government organisation will adhere to high ethical standards. This bill will broaden the State Services Commissioner\u2019s mandate, covering departments outside the public service, Crown entities, and the Reserve Bank. The commissioner will be able to provide advice and guidance on matters that concern the integrity and conduct of people working in the State services, and may issue appropriately customised codes of conduct. I might say that during the Committee stage, I have never heard so much nonsense spoken as I heard spoken on that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThe commissioner\u2019s mandate will also be extended to provide leadership across the development of organisational leaders and senior management across the State services\u2014outside the public service, of course, the commissioner does not have responsibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EGood governance and effective accountability arrangements are the key to ensuring that Government organisations perform well and deliver results. The new Crown Entities Bill replaces a patchwork of provisions applying inconsistently across statutes governing different Crown entities, with a coherent framework for governance, accountability, and performance. In the area of board fees, for example, disclosure of fees will be required, and any compensation for a loss of office will be precluded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E I think the essence of this part of the legislation probably goes back to the work of the Hon Murray McCully and his relationship with the Tourism Board, his gross interference in that area, and his causing of the paying out\u2014on an illegal basis\u2014large amounts of money to get rid of a board. This legislation makes it clear that that sort of ministerial interference cannot occur again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThere is currently some uncertainty among Crown entity chairs, boards, and staff around exactly how Crown entities fit into the Government and what is expected of Crown entities regarding Government policy and processes. This bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities of Parliament, Ministers, Crown entity chairs, and boards, ensuring that governance standards are comprehensive, transparent, and consistent. Through judicial use of the whole-of-Government direction power, Governments will have a greater scope to set expectations across the State sector. I do not think it will be used often, but when it is used it will be used transparently. Again, this is something that is particularly important. This will contribute to reducing fragmentation, and, as a Minister who has some responsibility for e-government, I think it can be particularly useful in reducing overlap and fragmentation in that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThe Government is mindful, however\u2014and this is a point that comes through from the work of the Hon Simon Upton\u2014of the significant differences in the types of Crown entities, and this legislation does not attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all approach. It is crucial, for example, that the independence of entities such as the Commerce Commission be both protected and be seen to be protected. Amendments to the legislation proposed by the Finance and Expenditure Committee have further strengthened the legislation in this regard\u2014for example, by explicitly defining \u201Cjust cause\u201D in relation to grounds for removal. The Government also recognises that the very different business needs of Crown entities depend on what they do. For example, we have some tiny rural schools with as few as four or five pupils that are Crown entities, running right through to entities such as the Accident Compensation Corporation and district health boards that are responsible for budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003ESo the umbrella framework of the legislation has been carefully designed to include mechanisms for tailoring provisions to the varying business needs of entities, while ensuring that the fundamental principles and standards for accountability and governance are met. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EIn summary, this legislation forms the foundation for a new level of excellence and cohesion in public sector management in New Zealand, while retaining and strengthening the fundamentals of the current system. I would like to thank all those people who were involved in developing the legislation. While being aware of the Standing Orders, I would like to acknowledge a group of officials who are currently in the gallery, for the years of work they have done. This legislation goes back well before the time I became Minister of State Services. People have been working on the principles, and there have been various draft bills around now for pretty close to 5 years. I want to thank those people for their concerted efforts on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EI welcome the enactment of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 4), the Crown Entities Bill, and the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill, and I look forward to the resulting improvements in transparency, accountability, and effectiveness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u002230ec0357395c49d1a20501f29ffe27fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002230ec0357395c49d1a20501f29ffe27fb\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to the third readings of these bills, I must say that this is important legislation. The public finance issues, and the size of the State sector itself, make this hugely important legislation. In my view, the State sector in this country is too big\u2014it is huge whichever way we look at it\u2014and therefore its management is vastly important. During the 1980s and 1990s New Zealand led the world in reform of our State sector and public financial management. I know from my work internationally at the OECD that New Zealand was recognised as having implemented world-leading reforms, and I remember one day in Washington a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury saying to me that New Zealand was an international public good in the way we had led the world in State sector reforms and reforms of public finances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThere is no question that even with the very good reforms that New Zealand implemented in the 1980s and 1990s\u2014reforms like the Fiscal Responsibility Act brought in by the National Government in the early 1990s, and like the State-Owned Enterprises Act of the previous Labour Government in the late 1980s, which at the time were excellent legislation\u2014we accept there will always be room for improvement. The State sector is so huge in New Zealand we could almost qualify as a communist country, not a market economy. It is so huge that ongoing reform of it is important. Of course, it started under the last National Government, as the Minister has mentioned. He pointed out to the House that the Hon Simon Upton started this work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EBut the tragedy is that the good work on improving the public financial management in this country and the management of the State sector has been hijacked by this left-wing Labour Government. The Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill caused such concern when it was introduced into this Parliament that the Clerk of the House made an unprecedented submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the result of that was such that major portions of the bill were struck out and replaced. That shows the extent to which this Labour Government ran it off the rails\u2014it ran this vitally important improvement of the management of our State sector right off the rails and forced the Clerk of this Parliament to intervene and make a submission to the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe problems that have emerged with this legislation\u2014the original 500-page Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill\u2014are because we have a Government that wants to meddle more. There is nothing wrong with the way this legislation provides for better coordination. We do not object to some of that material in this legislation. The objectionable parts are the way this legislation, in quite an insidious way\u2014in clauses spread right throughout it\u2014enables this Labour Government to meddle much more in the State sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003ELet me give this House examples of what I mean about this power to meddle more, and the increased control that is given to this Government. I guess this is led by the control freak, the Prime Minister\u2014that is what the public call her. It diffuses right down through this Government, and we see it in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe first example is the ability that this legislation gives the Minister to direct the affairs of Crown entities. There is nothing wrong, obviously, with Ministers being involved with the board of directors in determining the statement of intent for Crown entities. Obviously Crown entities\u2019 statements of intent should reflect the objectives of the Government. That makes good sense. There is no objection to the parts of the legislation that facilitate that. But the bits that enable the Minister to direct a Crown entity right down to employee level is objectionable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWe know what this Government does to employees. We saw what this Government did to Kit Richards. When he did not agree with what Helen Clark wanted, she drove him out of his position. This legislation gives the Minister the power to meddle far down into the organisations. It gives the Minister the power, not just to be involved in setting the broad objectives and the statement of intent for Crown entities, but to get involved in how they will deliver them. Again, that is unprecedented meddling in the management of these entities. So that is our first concern\u2014the increased control that this legislation gives the Minister over Crown entities, when the whole idea of the reforms of the late 1980s and the early 1990s was to enable those Crown entities to be less influenced by politics and to get on with doing the job they were meant to be doing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe second problem that emerges and flows on from that ability for the Minister to direct is that this legislation gets right down into the employment arrangements of some Crown entities. This legislation, for example, incorporates blatantly racist provisions that I would argue are demeaning to M\u0101ori. I am referring specifically to clause 156 in this legislation. The clause requires certain Crown entities to specifically look at the employment aspirations of M\u0101ori. I am unaware of any other legislation that does that. It is racist. The legislation does not require the Crown entity to examine those aspirations for any other group of New Zealanders. That is racist whatever way one looks at it, and it is objectionable to have it in legislation that is being passed in this House under urgency in 2004. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhat is also bad about this legislation is the prescriptive claptrap in it. Maybe if I can engage your interest in this area, Mr Speaker, as someone\u2014and I know I should not bring you into the debate, but just in passing\u2014who I know has a particular interest in the English language, and the structure and grammar of it. I invite you, Mr Speaker, to look at some clauses in this legislation that provide for Crown entities to \u201Cdo an act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThis bill uses that phrase. It provides for Crown entities to \u201Cdo an act\u201D. I invite any member of this House to tell me what part of the English language the phrase \u201Cto do an act\u201D comes from. Are we so legislatively hopeless today, is our knowledge of English so appalling, that we are reduced to putting into the laws of this land such a phrase. Clause 59, \u201CActs must be for purpose of functions\u201D, states: \u201CA statutory entity may do an act under section 57 \u2026\u201D. I believe that one can perform an action in the English language. However, I would be interested when one last heard of someone doing an act. It is jargon and should not be put into our legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EFinally, I shall focus on a hugely important part and that is the removal from our legislation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That Act has been hugely important to the economic well-being of this country. When I became a Minister in 1990, prior to the passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the first thing the financial controller of the Ministry of Education told me in my office on the first day was that there were things I needed to know about how the Government\u2014this was the previous Labour Government\u2014had been spending money illegally. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe Hon Phil Goff was the Minister I replaced. His financial controller in the ministry wanted me to know on the first day about the Mickey Mouse stuff that he believed was illegal that he had been forced to do by the Minister the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Education. The Fiscal Responsibility Act made that kind of thing impossible. It was iconic legislation that has led this country to a period of fiscal surpluses and sound financial management. One would ask what the motives are, for that iconic legislation to be wrapped up into this legislation in this way. I believe that it has a lot to do with this Government actually wanting less transparency. We know how this Government likes to hand out money to all and sundry. It is not helpful for the future prosperity of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u002239bcc853b4304d5abb2589d5c1eb9f2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239bcc853b4304d5abb2589d5c1eb9f2f\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E If anybody was doing an act, frankly, it was the last speaker. At this time of Christmas, pantomimes, and things of that ilk, I refuse to believe that a member of his standing in this House could be so perpetually angry. It is Christmas, after all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022404d40b53aa74cde81a1ba343ef26691\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: He used to be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e26f49537e894a2d996f9a7e5b1a8ac3\u0022\u003EMARK PECK\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, he used to be good once. He was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when I was chairing that committee. I say to that member that his acting ability is well known. He sits there with a Pepsodent grin, knowing very well that he does not believe a word he says. There is only one thing that is making that member perpetually angry about this matter, as with all pieces of legislation, even with legislation that he agrees with. He gets perpetually angry about it. I do not know whether he thinks it sounds better, but the reason he is so grumpy is that the only plank of the economic change of this country that the National Party can put up its hand and take credit for is the Fiscal Responsibility Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003EThere is a saying for people who are perpetually angry and acting up in ways like that, and that is \u201CBuild a bridge and get over it.\u201D It has been said in this debate, and I agree with the honourable Minister in his speech, this legislation is not repealing the Fiscal Responsibility Act at all. It integrates several pieces of legislation into one piece of legislation. I agree with the Minister that officials who have worked on this, and Ministers who have worked on this, including Simon Upton, did a remarkably good job in putting into place legislation that will stand the test of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003EWe in this House should not say that this legislation removes fiscal responsibility. That is irresponsible in the extreme. I know that John Key will not use those words. I listened to John Key and the way he has been performing lately. He is the only one on that side of the House who has any financial understanding at all and is making any headway in terms of the way in which he is running his portfolio. I know that he will not say that. I know that they are grumpy that Ruth Richardson\u2019s legislation is now being integrated into the Public Finance Act, but that is just the way it is. Legislation does not stand still, and neither should it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003EI say to members of the National Party that it is Christmas. For crying out loud, stop the act, stop the pantomime, recognise that we have some very strong financial and fiscal legislation in this country that ensures very clear transparency, and let us celebrate that. We actually lead the world in that respect. I do agree with Lockwood Smith about one thing. When we travel overseas we get great kudos for the financial reform that we have introduced in this country. So let us not badmouth it, let us celebrate it, and let us all have a good Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u00228ad87466872042aa801132bb7d68acdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ad87466872042aa801132bb7d68acdf\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E By the looks of it, the Government has the numbers stitched up with the United Future party in this third reading debate, and this legislation looks as though it will be enacted. As we all know by now, these bills are supposed to cover the main legislation that governs public finance and the management of the State sector. The legislation is the culmination of a review of public sector management, and has been questioned from time to time in the second reading debate, the Committee stage, and in this third reading debate. The Review of the Centre suggested initiatives to support better integration, greater flexibility, and an increased focus on results, without losing the system\u2019s current strengths of transparency, accountability, and financial management. Like all members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I had to ask whether this legislation would achieve the transparency, the accountability, and the better financial management that this Government said it would. At the end of the select committee process, after looking through the legislation tirelessly, after looking through the submissions, and after the submitters had talked to us and we had also asked them questions, the answer I came up with was a big, fat, resounding no. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EI found that to be quite sad. New Zealand First always wants to support good legislation. We will always oppose bad legislation. Unfortunately, the make-up of this legislation was too far from what we would call good. The New Zealand First members wanted to see whether the legislation did what Michael Cullen said, in a press release quite a few months ago now, that it would do. We also wanted to hear submissions on whether the legislation would achieve its goal. Sadly, as I have just said, I do not believe that it does achieve its goal in any way, shape, or form. The legislation amends the Public Finance Act and the State Sector Act and creates a new Crown Entities Act, as we all know. It is said that that Act will improve all the transparency and accountability around that legislation by bringing in the Public Finance Act, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and so on. Unfortunately, given the way that the legislation has been drafted and so on, I believe it still needs to have a lot of work done on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThis legislation represents more State control. If one asks what the legislation stands for and represents, at the end of the day one learns that it represents more State control from this Government. That is clear and simple; there are no two ways about it. In respect of clause 212 in Part 6 of the original 500-page bill, I shall read out something that concerned me greatly. Clause 212(1) stated: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:\u201D\u2014members should listen to this\u2014\u201C(a) requiring Crown entities to include information in a statement of intent or annual report that is additional to the information required by this Act:\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThat clause states that after the Crown entity has fulfilled all its requirements, after it has fulfilled everything it has been asked to do, and after it has dotted all the i\u2019s and crossed the t\u2019s a million times, the Government still wants to be able to delve into its life and get additional information from it, no matter what, and no matter what the Crown entity thinks. That is what clause 212 stands for\u2014that is what it means. There are no two ways about it, there is no way through it, and there is no way over it. The fact is that the statement \u201Crequiring Crown entities to include information in a statement of intent or annual report that is additional to the information required by this Act:\u201D means that the Government wants to be given additional information\u2014it wants to have extra information. The entity may have done everything required of it and everything set out under the law, but the Government wants more than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThat is what this Government stands for in this legislation. That is what the legislation does, and it is one of the many reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to it. The Government wants to have a stronger grip on anything and everything in our society, and that is what it is slowly doing, little by little, in legislation such as this. It wants to have more State control over our taxes, our education system, and our other organisations. There is one issue that I want to speak to the United Future members about, which is the whole area of academic freedom. I say that United Future\u2019s supporters and voters would want their party to stand up for what they believe in and for what they voted it into Parliament to represent them on. We all know how scary it can be if academic freedoms are not upheld, and I believe that this legislation opens the door to the stifling of those freedoms. Representatives of our educational institutions came to the select committee, and they were very concerned about this legislation in terms of academic freedom. They were very uneasy about Part 3 of the original bill. I admired the way the tertiary sector stood up against the bill. Overall, the Government has changed a few things in this legislation, but the legislation has ultimately kept the same shape that it had at its first reading. That is why New Zealand First will have to vote against this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u002286051f0756cc4e69aa2cbcecb5c5a77c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286051f0756cc4e69aa2cbcecb5c5a77c\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT party is still voting against this legislation in the third reading. It is legislation that cannot be fixed by a few amendments here and there. It repeals the Fiscal Responsibility Act, without any good argument being advanced as to why we should repeal it. The Fiscal Responsibility Act should remain a stand-alone Act. New Zealand has led the way, in terms of showing the world how we can have legislation that restricts the power of politicians to spend money. Politicians, whether from central government or local government, love to spend other people\u2019s money. It is very, very easy to spend other people\u2019s money. We should be passing legislation to further restrict that spending, instead of passing legislation to make it much easier for politicians to spend money. The Hon Ruth Richardson\u2019s intentions when the fiscal responsibility legislation was drafted have remained valid. They were that the Act would be a discipline on Government expenditure, as well as providing information to Parliament and to the people represented by Parliament about where and how taxpayers\u2019 money is being spent. We should build on the principles of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, not weaken them. The legislation before us does weaken that important check on politicians\u2019 temptation to spend public money recklessly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EFortunately, the legislation as it is being passed now is somewhat better than the bill that went to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We still have the situation whereby taxpayers\u2019 money can be spent only with the authority of Parliament. The changes made to the legislation by that bipartisan select committee were driven largely by Dave McGee QC, who put in strong submissions to the committee. The executive is restricted, but Parliament still has unfettered power to spend other people\u2019s money. As I said, we should be building on the principles of the Fiscal Responsibility Act rather than, as the situation is at the moment, passing legislation whereby Parliament votes to spend money on generalised and basically unprincipled spending, such as that in the areas of education, social entrepreneurship, regional development, or arts and culture. The discretion on how money should be spent in those areas is passed on to unelected public servants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat do we get as a result of that? Under the education spending, we get degrees, courses, and certificates in nonsense topics, like Twilight Golf and singalong M\u0101ori lessons on the radio. Under social entrepreneurship, we get spending on hip-hop tours of the United States\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8de0fe360a5473d9bca7da9420f2c68\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: Hawaii.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d29ca208139043a094169d290d489145\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the United States. Under M\u0101ori development and M\u0101ori culture, we get the spending of millions of dollars on kapahaka competitions that skip a year and do not happen because the budget has blown out. Under regional development, we get Jim Anderton\u2019s \u201Cjobs machine\u201D, where his officials spray money around like confetti so that he can try to get votes and photo opportunities. We get spending on places like the Warehouse, and millions of dollars go to Hollywood moguls who come here to make movies, as a reward. In retrospect the money is spent, but where is the regional development in that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EUnder Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, half a million dollars of taxpayers\u2019 money is spent on so-called art\u2014assemblages such as a port-a-loo that makes a noise like a donkey. In fact, we still have not seen the artist who is to represent New Zealand at the international exhibition that the art will go to. We still do not know what we are sending there. The Minister herself does not know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a345753c754b41acab54c4cc322cd3f0\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Et al.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222688ed82ca97432e8f7ee811c9c53562\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Et al. Under the broadcasting vote, money is spent on NZ Idol, which is a copy of an overseas programme\u2014one of the most commercially successful television programmes, in terms of generating revenue both from audience participation and advertising. We spent taxpayers\u2019 money on that, under the heading of broadcasting. It is about picking winners. It does not work, and it rewards rent-seeking behaviour. That is why I believe we should debate and pass legislation that places much greater scrutiny on the spending of taxpayers\u2019 money. We should be looking at the value for money\u2014what we get out of what we are spending. Why do we not look at that before we decide where we spend it, instead of just passing it under generalised, unprincipled headings and sending it off to the huge State service sector to spend? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWe should have an independent commission that would undertake systematic reviews of taxpayers\u2019 money, to see whether we had value for money. We can imagine how it would be if we had a taxpayers\u2019 bill of rights that restricted Government spending even further, so that it did not exceed the rate of inflation or population growth. I liked the United Future member\u2019s suggestion about the state of Colorado, where, when it has a fiscal surplus\u2014if it takes too much tax from the taxpayers\u2014it has to give that back. It cannot just save that money and store it up for an election year, and then spend it on constituencies where it wants to get the vote. This is not our money. People seem to forget that. There are too many members in this House, especially on the Government side, who have never run their own businesses or worked in the private sector, and who do not know what it is like to generate wealth\u2014to make and spend one\u2019s own money. If they did, they would think very carefully about where they spent taxpayers\u2019 money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI will finish by briefly touching on what this legislation does to the academic freedom and autonomy of tertiary institutions. I commend the Vice-Chancellors Committee for the fight it has put up against the Government, which has been totally dismissed. The Government will argue until it is blue in the face that the status quo has been preserved. It has not been preserved. The legislation increases the State\u2019s control of Crown entities, and does not exclude universities from those entities. The spirit of the Education Act of 1989 has been breached. The academic freedom protected in that Act has now gone. The State Services Commissioner can have a say in collective agreements negotiated by any Crown entity, including the universities. In conclusion, I believe that the repeal of the Fiscal Responsibility Act is a serious error.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002296fb35539bd44cabae219c0b62a71725\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296fb35539bd44cabae219c0b62a71725\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E This legislation is better than when it started, but it is not as good as it should be. I thank in particular the Clerk of the House, David McGee, and the staff from the office of the Auditor-General for their strenuous efforts at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to improve the legislation. It was really because of their hard work that we have the legislation before us in its current form. I will not repeat what I said during the Committee stage debate about how, particularly, David McGee made a big difference to the original bill, but I think it is worth reflecting on a couple of the very strong statements that he made in his early submission. It is unusual language for the Clerk of the House to describe clauses of a bill as \u201Cvirus-like\u201D and as a \u201CTrojan horse\u201D, yet he did, and I think he needed to use that sort of language in order to shake the select committee out of its lethargy. Up until then the officials had done a very good job of convincing us that everything was largely technical in nature, and did not involve substantive changes to existing legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt is appalling parliamentary process for legislation of such size, and that has an all-pervasive impact on the public sector, to be forced through under urgency in this way. I think the Government will look back on that and regret the way it has treated the public sector in Parliament in relation to this legislation. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Government to look back, because one needs only to remember that within 19 days of the foreshore and seabed legislation being passed under urgency\u2014thanks to New Zealand First supporting the Government\u2014the first amendment to it was before the House. I remind United Future of its complicity in this urgency motion. It is because of the United Future members that we are doing the same to this legislation as we did to the foreshore and seabed legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ENotwithstanding those criticisms, the Greens will support the passage of this legislation, although lingering doubts remain about its intent and application. We endeavoured to improve it by a series of amendments, and I acknowledge the Labour Party and the Progressive party for their support for our amendments to allow Crown entities and tertiary education institutions to bank with their local building societies. That is a first but significant step towards countering the bank-preference clauses that discriminate against building societies in New Zealand. Our building society amendments will enable the community partnership that already exists between, for example, the Southern Institute of Technology and the Southland Building Society, to extend to banking\u2014something that I know Mr Peck, the local MP, is very pleased to see. I found it extraordinary that the National, ACT, New Zealand First, and United Future parties opposed building societies. I could not believe it when they voted against that amendment. I do not know what they have against mutual organisations that have 150,000 members and that simply want to be able to provide tertiary institutions and Crown entities with a safe, secure place to deposit their money, in the full knowledge that the profits will remain in New Zealand instead of being siphoned off by foreign-owned banks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, the Labour Party and the Progressive party joined the other parties in opposing our other amendments. I am very sad about that, because I think we put up some very constructive amendments. One of the most significant amendments that we put up was a change to the good-employer clause, which would have required Crown entities to have a pay and employment equity programme. It is very disappointing that, for all the fine rhetoric from the Government, and despite the fact that it set up a task force in 2003 and now has a unit beavering away in the Department of Labour, it wants to continue the talkfest, rather than to implement actual legislative change in order to address pay equity. That is a shame, because the Government should be taking a lead on pay equity. Instead, there is a greater gender pay gap in the public sector than in the private sector. Members need only to look at the classic example of nurses, whereby a nurse gets approximately $10,000 less than a police officer when starting out but, at the top of the scale, gets $20,000 less than a bobby on the beat. Pay equity is not just a gender issue, of course; there are inequities along ethnic lines, as well. For example, the average hourly rate for a P\u0101keh\u0101 man is $19.88. That compares with $13.79 for a Pacific woman, and everyone else sits in between those two figures. That is an amendment that I would have thought a Labour-Progressive Government would support, especially given the number of former trade union officials in those parties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOther amendments we put up would have created a belt and braces approach in relation to contingent liabilities, derivative transactions, securities, investments, and guarantees\u2014something I would have thought that John Key would support, given his background in the area. We also sought an addition to various reporting functions, particularly the economic forecast. We wanted that to include the balance of overseas trade in goods and services, reserves of natural resources, our social well-being, and our environmental quality. Again, that amendment and others relating to triple bottom lines were rejected by the Government. That is not just unfortunate but is also hypocritical, because the Government has had a lot to say in recent years\u2014at the Rio conference, in Johannesburg, at the Redesigning Resources conferences in New Zealand, and at its own press conferences where, from the Prime Minister through to the Minister for the Environment, it has waxed lyrical\u2014about the benefits of triple bottom lines. But when it came to the opportunity to incorporate triple bottom lines in the Crown financial statements, the Government refused to do so. I think that is an indictment of the Government, and it is something we will continue to raise with the Government, because it is long overdue that those changes take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EAlthough the Green Party supports this legislation, we have lingering concerns about it. Some of those concerns were expressed by a group of submitters. I have already traversed the views of the universities. I am not sure that their concerns are entirely justified. Given that the universities are protected under the Education Act and given the amendments made to schedule 6B of the original bill, I think that the universities have had some significant concessions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI finish my speech with a small tribute to June Pellow, who was one of the critics of this legislation. She died in November as a result of cancer, but right to the end she continued to contribute to the debate on this legislation. She said in her closing article on it: \u201CContrary to the statement made by the Minister of Finance in tabling the bill, we conclude that overlooking the political implications is a risk, especially if New Zealand is to \u2018set the world benchmark for public management\u2019, and that politicians need to be educated in accounting matters and their significance for the democratic process. A wolf (risks to taxpayer funds) appears to be entering the New Zealand Government using innocuous sheep\u2019s clothing (technical accounting matters).\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EI hope that June Pellow\u2019s conclusions are wrong, but I acknowledge and honour the contributions she has made to the public policy debate in New Zealand. I hope that we will be vigilant in terms of the concerns she has raised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a38d673d8f1b443ca72cfbc48ba6ad0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a38d673d8f1b443ca72cfbc48ba6ad0b\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to the third reading of the public finance legislation, which we have now been debating in the House for more than 24 hours. I begin with a comment about the universities. As the previous speaker, Rod Donald, mentioned, we had some submissions from the universities. Their argument\u2014which I think was, in the end, fallacious\u2014was that they did not want their assets and liabilities consolidated into the Crown accounts, on the basis that that would somehow threaten their academic freedom. As I said in a previous speech, I think we need to decouple those two things, because realities are realities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI suggest to the universities that if they want the totality of academic freedom in the way that, for example, Harvard University exercises it in the United States, then their only option really would be to become private. That is not completely out of the question. I understand that Oxford University either has, or is in the process of, or is certainly looking at the possibility of becoming a private university. Private status confers upon a university the opportunity to have complete academic freedom, and also complete freedom to challenge the Government or any other part of society from time to time. I think the only answer I can give to the vice-chancellors who came to see us is to tell them to look at the Oxford example and consider whether it is possible for some universities in this country to become private. Maybe that is a way out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThis bill accomplishes some important things in the interests of the clearer presentation of the public accounts and the absorption of the Fiscal Responsibility Act into the overall public finance framework. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not bring the Fiscal Responsibility Act to an end. On the contrary, it affirms and embeds that world-leading legislation into New Zealand law for the long term. The bad old days when a Government could keep the public in the dark about the state of the nation\u2019s books, particularly in an election year, are now a thing of the past\u2014and a somewhat shameful past it was at that. We can thank Ruth Richardson for that Act, although some of her other innovations are not fondly remembered. However, credit where credit is due. The targeting and control of Government expenditure is also at the heart of this bill, and it is in that regard that I think the nation still has some way to go. In my view, the focus of the estimates on outcomes is conceptually correct, but they do not yet, in general, really measure the worth, or otherwise, of expenditure with sufficient precision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe big question is whether taxpayers get bangs for their buck in the delivery of services by Government agencies and their departments. Let me mention a couple of examples. What really is it that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is trying to do? I must say that when I put that question into my speech, I did not realise that the Hon Ruth Dyson would be in the Chamber to hear me. I assure the Minister that I am not picking on the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; I simply want to use it as an example. I put that question at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to Dr Graham Scott, former secretary of the Treasury and, therefore, someone with a fair bit of experience in the whole concept of outcome-oriented expenditure controls. His reply was that the core function of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services should be preventive. I do not know for sure that that answer is correct, but if it is, then obviously the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is a failure, because sadly, as is well known, the department\u2019s list of clients\u2014children at risk\u2014grows ever longer. In other words, if the goal is preventive, it is not working. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EParliament and the Government need to know that, because if it is not working, then we need to do something about it. It needs to be reformed, and we then need to reallocate the necessary resources into something that does work. What difference, for example, might result from a much smaller sum of money being put into the financing of vouchers to subsidise all New Zealand parents into parental training courses, run not by the nanny State but by charities and other non-governmental organisations? There are many fine organisations already in New Zealand that offer parenting programmes, but they are often scratching pub charities to try to find the money to keep those programmes going, as well as charging fees to parents to participate in them. I believe that the Government could remove some of those barriers and have, as a policy goal, to ensure that all parents in New Zealand become educated on how to become great parents. If that were done, I think it would result in less children being at risk. Then, truly, the outcome-goal of preventing children from becoming at risk in the first place would certainly be better delivered than it is under the present system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIt is fundamentally important that our departments and agencies do the right thing in terms of outcomes for our society. I remember a speech that Bill Clinton gave at the APEC conference in Auckland a few years back. He made that very point. He said that if we are not doing the right thing\u2014if the idea we have in the first instance is not the right idea\u2014then we can work away and pour a lot of money into the wrong thing for a very long time. If we are doing that, then our system, which is outcome-based, should pick that up. We then need to stop that, start again, and do things differently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe mechanisms provided in this bill are merely tools. We still have to do the job. At least when it comes to children at risk, we clearly are not doing the right thing. We will not be doing the right thing until we see the statistics about the abuse and neglect of children, and about other situations that put children at risk, coming down. Indeed, we should see a decrease in the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system\u2014that situation should begin turning round. In other words, the ideas around outcomes-focused reporting are: why are we spending the money, what are we getting for it, and how do we measure that? Otherwise, Government initiatives merely become like a giant super-tanker that moves forward under its own momentum, absorbing megabucks compulsorily extracted from taxpayers but doing little that truly makes a positive difference to our society and its families. The bill provides a methodology and a system, but it will deliver real benefit for New Zealanders only if we skilfully use it to deliver measurable outcomes that are designed to enrich the life and welfare of the people of this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI could perhaps give a further example to emphasise the point and the importance of outcomes-related expenditure controls\u2014something, I know, that the Secretary to the Treasury is continuing to work on. As I have said of this legislation, we have provided a good framework, a mechanism, whereby the estimates in particular that come to this House are outcome-driven. But again, we have only to look, for example, at an area like the money dispensed through Sport and Recreation New Zealand and say: \u201COK, we are putting all this money out, but are we actually getting something back for our buck?\u201D. Is it actually making a difference? What is the goal? Is it, through physical exercise, to improve the health of New Zealanders? If so, has it done that and are we measuring it? If, on the other hand, we use anecdotal evidence\u2014for example, evidence of a rugby league club that decides to have a Saturday night booze-up for the members of the club and their spouses\u2014then quite obviously the money is being misspent against an outcome that is negative, not positive, in terms of improving the health of people through sport. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI believe there are some very real questions that need to be continually worked on by Treasury and by the Government in that area. However, having expressed those sentiments, let me say that, overall, United Future is content that this legislation is a good step in the right direction. It will put in place some very robust rules around public sector finance and the State Services Commission in terms of management. Accordingly, we are happy to signal that we will vote for the legislation on its third and final reading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00228c291069ffc04a16b21f5f2675e34f54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c291069ffc04a16b21f5f2675e34f54\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak in favour of the third reading of the public finance and State sector legislation. First, I will refer briefly to the National Party\u2019s concern that the fiscal responsibility provisions that used to be in a separate Act now appear in this legislation. I read from the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2019s report back: \u201Cit is true the Fiscal Responsibility Act will be incorporated in the body of the new Public Finance Act, \u201D. The matter is that simple; the report I read from is in fact the National Party\u2019s minority report in the commentary on the bill, and whether the fiscal responsibility provision appears in Part 1 or Part 2, it does not change its effectiveness at all. National\u2019s protestations to the contrary are just plain incorrect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe next point I will deal with is the suggestion that the Government is trying to take away academic freedom from universities. The Government is required\u2014and all parties agree that the requirement is appropriate\u2014to comply with international accounting standards. Those accounting standards require that the Government include in its books all the assets that fall within the ambit of financial reporting rules. University assets and liabilities fall within the ambit of those rules, therefore the Government has an obligation to include them in the Crown\u2019s finances. If the Government does not, it is criticised and gets tagged accounts, as happened during the last year when universities\u2019 accounts were not consolidated into the Crown\u2019s financial statements. That is the reason\u2014the only reason\u2014why it is that universities are now required to have their financial situations consolidated in the Crown accounts. That does not at all undermine the academic freedom of universities, which this Government supports and will protect in the future. I commend this legislation to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1168c3914ee4727bdee17a3cd5474e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1168c3914ee4727bdee17a3cd5474e3\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E We are here today to debate the third readings of the public finance and State sector legislation, legislation that National will be opposing. Before I begin, I acknowledge the work of the officials who worked on this legislation for a very long time. It is very significant legislation. It replaces the Public Finance Act, an Act of Parliament that has served New Zealand extremely well indeed. I know that the officials worked extremely hard, and the criticism I am about to make of the legislation is no reflection on their work but, rather, on the misguided musings of two Ministers who have a political agenda\u2014namely, Dr Cullen and the Minister of State Services, Trevor Mallard. That agenda is intertwined in this legislation, which will be remembered, if for nothing else, for the fact that the original bill was 500 pages long and contained an incredible amount of drivel. It also contradicted itself on numerous occasions. Other than that, the fact that the legislation is so prescriptive means it is likely to lead to lawsuits all over the show involving Crown entities, and we are left wondering why we are rushing it through under urgency today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to make note of the select committee process. In the 2\u00BD years I have been in Parliament I have seen a great many submissions before various select committees. I think it is fair to say that in my limited time in Parliament I have never seen a submission accepted almost in totality in the way that the submission from the Clerk of the House, David McGee, was accepted. That in part reflects the very widely held, cross-party view of the work that David McGee does and the contribution he makes to Parliament. I think the New Zealand public, many of whom will not know David McGee, have a lot to thank him for for the work he undertook on this legislation, because he certainly transformed it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to draw attention to two of the major issues that he highlighted in his submission, and that have been corrected in the soon-to-be-passed legislation. The first of those was around the elimination of the estimates. It is easy to sit back and say there is so much information that removing the estimates would really not have too much impact, but we forget that one of Parliament\u2019s most significant jobs is to allocate the spending undertaken by the State sector, and to scrutinise and review that spending as it takes place. The estimates process is a very important and detailed process, a process under which parliamentarians on both sides of the House\u2014but very often it is left to Opposition members\u2014can drill down into the spending, and make sure that taxpayer dollars are being appropriately assigned to where it was indicated they would be, so that true reflection can take place. To remove the estimates would have had quite a significant impact on transparency and on the ability of members, particularly those in the Opposition, to scrutinise spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI also want to highlight a second and very important part of the submission that Mr McGee made. It was around the ability under the Official Information Act potentially to block requests\u2014often from Opposition parliamentarians but also from the media\u2014on the basis of political grounds. At the moment, most of those who work with the Official Information Act will know that information can be requested across all matters, and can be and often is withheld by the Government on commercial grounds, but cannot be withheld on political grounds. Mr McGee pointed out, quite effectively I think, that there was a great chance that that could take place under this legislation. One has to ask why it was left to David McGee to work that out. I think the answer, and the conclusion one draws, is that it was not left to Mr McGee; he was smart enough to see it, but, in fact, it was part of the process that the Government was wanting to entwine in the original bill and to bury so deep in that 500-page document that it never saw the light of day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI will now reflect on some comments in relation to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and the entwinement of that Act in the new Public Finance Act. I say that that action is an absolute disgrace. Maybe this House needs a small history lesson on where and how the Fiscal Responsibility Act came about. It came about because a National Government came to office and had to look at, and work with, a set of accounts that were fundamentally wrong. They fundamentally did not tell the truth about the New Zealand economy. To say that the 1984-90 Labour Government cooked the books is not incorrect, but to say that New Zealand should never be faced with that situation again is absolutely the right picture. When Ruth Richardson became Minister of Finance in 1990, she worked tirelessly to get the Fiscal Responsibility Act, an iconic piece of legislation, into our Parliament. She did a magnificent job of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENew Zealand has a lot to thank her for, because under that Act we get not only some clarity but also some transparency. Most of us will know that just this week we have gained some more transparency under the Budget Policy Statement, as a result of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, in relation to just how the Government will spend money. And, my word, it is going to spend money\u2014$23 billion in the next 4 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022710136f7401a4b2292361bdc94b3d6bb\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: How much does your tax policy cost?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a57978b76aa746898d92a5cdf89ae8ac\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, our tax policies are costed, thank you, I tell the member. The Fiscal Responsibility Act plays an incredibly important part, and it is a disgrace that it is being buried in the Public Finance Act. I think that will not be lost on the people of New Zealand when they reflect on that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to talk about another important move within this legislation. One of the reasons I have concerns is the way that the State sector will endeavour to define the way that it should be judged, effectively\u2014to put it in layman\u2019s terms. The Public Finance Act in 1989 essentially defined the way that the State sector should be measured\u2014on the basis of outputs. It was relatively easy to go and look at those outputs and to determine and decipher whether the Government department in question had actually reached its goal in terms of outputs. The Public Finance Act makes some movement towards a goal of measuring by outcomes. I think that in one sense that is quite a noble cause and not without merit. I say that because if we take a very simple example like, say, the Immigration Service, and ask ourselves what the outcome is, I think most New Zealanders would agree that the Immigration Service\u2019s No. 1 outcome is to allow people to come to New Zealand, make New Zealand their home, integrate into our society, and make the best contribution they possibly can. Therefore the outcome we want from the Immigration Service is that it does that job and allows people to come here and make a significant contribution to our country. That can be different from the output, which can be processing the number of people going through the Immigration Service, with no regard at all to the kinds of people who come out the other end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ESo in one sense I understand the dilemma, but I think it leaves open a very woolly interpretation by Ministers, who will all of a sudden find it quite difficult, I think, to judge whether their departments have actually achieved their outcomes. One can imagine that with biosecurity the argument will be put forward that the outcome\u2014something very dear to our rural background and something that could have a significant impact on our economy\u2014is no incursions, but in reality it is likely that any incursion could well be blamed on many others areas over time. I have concerns about that. I have concerns about multiple aggregation of outputs, where definition will become less clear, and it will become harder for the Opposition to interrogate and decipher the information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EA lot has been said about the Crown entities. There is not enough time in my address to discuss that, unless, Mr Speaker, you are prepared to give another 10 minutes\u2014and even though this is the Christmas season I doubt that that is the case. So on that note I will leave that, and say that National will be opposing this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, in case I do not have another opportunity to do so, I wish you the very best for Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cc813b2a47240e3951d2dc18b099093\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022631482d1c7c2486ebcb8319b404195bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022631482d1c7c2486ebcb8319b404195bd\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to support the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba54ba4592b74baa8f9d8a448ada6e3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba54ba4592b74baa8f9d8a448ada6e3d\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E That was a stunning speech from the Minister of Fisheries\u2014a few little words! As I have said before, during the first reading debate on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, National has tried very hard on it. We understand that the officials spent a lot of time drafting the legislation, and we learnt during the Committee stage that the concept for the bill came from the Hon Simon Upton. But, unfortunately, as was pointed out by my colleague John Key, the incoming Minister of Finance, it has been politicised, interfered with, and tinkered with by the Minister of Finance\u2014the current one\u2014and the Minister of State Services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EWhen the original bill was introduced to the House, at some stage in February, it was said that it was meant to fix problems with Crown entities\u2019 behaviour and governance, to provide leadership and development among the State sector, to improve flexibility, and to retain accountability for public money. But how much real impact that 500-page bill will have in terms of changing behaviour and culture remains to be seen. It is important to bear in mind that behavioural and cultural change come about by having leaders with clear vision who can articulate expectations and put in place transparent and appropriate measurement systems. The mere fact that everything is written into a 500-page bill will do little to motivate individuals to behave in a way that is conducive to producing the desirable outcome. Rules, regulations, and legislation alone will not achieve that. The fact is that the minority Labour Government for far too long\u20145 years\u2014has shown a lack of independence and objectivity in enforcing a policy that will enable New Zealand to move forward in a way that benefits all New Zealanders. I would certainly not expect the public sector to behave any differently because of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI also want to make a sad observation on the behaviour of two political parties, United Future and the Greens, during the debate on this legislation. Both those parties campaigned on the promise that they would come to Parliament to hold the Government to account. They told their supporters that they stood for integrity and excellence. We have heard Rod Donald time and time again say that this legislation is not as good as it could be but it will have to do. We have heard from United Future that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but that United Future members are looking forward to it returning to the House for further amendment. The New Zealand Parliament is not a place where mediocrity should be respected or accepted. Members of Parliament come to this House to do their best. It is a place where political parties are supposed to be accountable to their supporters and to all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003ELet us examine why the National Party eventually decided, after much deliberation, that we cannot support this legislation. In the debate on Part 1, I continued to point out that the Finance and Expenditure Committee acknowledges and is grateful to the Clerk of the House for standing up to defend the supremacy of Parliament over the executive\u2019s attempts, in the way that Part 1 was drafted, to undermine that supremacy. It would have made MPs\u2019 lives difficult in seeking answers and also digesting aggregated financial information from Government departments. The acknowledgment of that fact still has not removed the lingering doubt in our minds as to why it happened in the first place. If that drafting was the result of deliberate political instruction, that is very worrying. If it was due to a lack of understanding on the part of the officials that it would undermine parliamentary supremacy, that certainly makes me very worried as to the capability of the officials involved. I would like to think it was unintentional, but certainly the doubt is there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EIt was very much of concern to us on this side of the House whenever we saw a statement about the whole-of-Government approach in terms of Part 2 and Part 3, which concern the management of the State sector and Crown entities and State-owned enterprises. The very famous line about the Immigration Service of \u201Clying in unison\u201D gives me more reason to doubt whether the executive would allow Government departments to remain independent. If the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State Services can jointly instruct that there be a so-called whole-of-Government approach, I doubt whether Parliament would ever get to the bottom of answers to any questions we want to pose about Government departments in terms of outcomes, outputs, and accountability for their performance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI think the universities have raised a valid point, not so much about the drafting of this legislation but in pointing out that in the last 4 years the Labour Government has chipped away the autonomy of the tertiary education sector. That is why they are concerned about this legislation. As I say, sometimes it is not so much what one puts in the legislation; rather, in this case it was the consistent chipping away of academic autonomy that had the university sector making very strong representations to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, I would like to utilise my last few seconds to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very well-earned break. After all, we are going to miss you because this will be your last Christmas in your long and, shall I say\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0369caad47143c1b286e918bcc505aa\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Distinguished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c8b19e080c44b0da42a6a9315e78683\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014distinguished\u2014that is a good word\u2014career as Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament, which is one of the oldest democracies. I say bon voyage to wherever you may be going, and have a very good break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff7509f387774d80b6ed9f9abde13f48\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, and I am sure all the other members of your party join you in expressing those wishes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0a63dc2c67f4e25ad25788b2b3cbb28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0a63dc2c67f4e25ad25788b2b3cbb28\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the third readings of the legislation. I would like to echo the last member\u2019s words and wish you a very happy Christmas, after a very productive and interesting year in the House where, as Speaker, you have at all times behaved in the most professional and fair manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e43832e49407a9668acab686b060a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, but that still does not mean the member can break any Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d34f69d252754d2381c6088c4b120580\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 4), the Crown Entities Bill, and the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBills read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221617ad6b6d07421ab707ebf6f2ebba10\u0022\u003E Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225f4165071bb34d428bd5a7c0b98cc2cd\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00229b042f24291e403c851f412c7ebbc377\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b042f24291e403c851f412c7ebbc377\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. In due course I will move that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill amends the Resource Management Act of 1991 in improving quality of decisions and processes while not compromising environmental outcomes or sacrificing public participation. The key objectives are to increase certainty, reduce delays and costs, and ensure consistency of process. The bill also proposes two amendments to the Electricity Act of 1992. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThis bill is the result of a process characterised by a close working relationship between central and local government. The development of the bill is also the culmination of extensive consultation undertaken throughout the last 18 months. We have rejected the calls of a few extreme voices that wanted to see the Resource Management Act ripped apart for the sake of unfettered development. Quite frankly, that is not sensible, it is not necessary; and it is not even what various elements of the community asked us for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EAs the chief executive officer of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Michael Barnett, noted after surveying 350 of its members: \u201CThe issue with the RMA is not so much the contents of the Act preventing development proceeding, but how it is administered by local authorities.\u201D That is because the Act is, firstly, about protecting the environment for future generations\u2014something that should remain as its overriding consideration. Development at any cost is no answer, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EWe have identified a series of issues and have come up with timely, sensible, and well-thought-out solutions. Legislative changes are just one part of a package of measures, reflecting a stronger leadership role for central government, and implementing and supporting the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill addresses problems at all levels of decision making. The focus is on local democracy at the plan level, where the community sets the rules, while decisions at the consent level are made more robust and quasi-judicial. Local authorities and the Environment Court are to be given extra powers to run efficient inquiry-style hearings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EI am in no doubt that the bill will achieve its aim. Indeed, I was heartened by the words of the manager of regulatory services for Buller District Council, Terry Archer, when we announced the reform package. He simply exclaimed: \u201CWhere the hell were these things in 1991 when they introduced the Resource Management Act? It would have made it so much easier.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003ELocal authorities are increasingly being asked to consider projects that raise issues of national significance in a policy environment that provides little guidance on how competing national benefits and local costs should be weighed. For the first time, we will have a range of mechanisms for managing national and local interests. The bill strengthens the expression of national interest by reinforcing the role of national policy statements and national environmental standards. There will be a menu of flexible options for central government involvement, including funding of an independent coordinator, direction for joint council hearings, and changes to the call-in process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EDistrict and regional plans are varied at present and in some cases are inexplicably inconsistent. This bill provides for national standards to be set, absolutely when necessary, throughout the country. That will reduce duplication and costs associated with producing similar standards, it will increase certainty for landowners and developers when dealing with local authorities, and it will reduce unnecessary compliance and regulatory costs. Jan Crawford, a planner of some 30 years\u2019 experience and an academic with Waikato University\u2019s International Global Change Institute that studies the Resource Management Act, noted that these changes were, in her view, long overdue. She described the greater use of national policy statements and environmental standards as \u201Cfilling the hole in the doughnut\u2014the vacuum at the centre of the RMA.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThis bill will improve local authority decision-making on resource consents. Consultation requirements will be clarified. The role of local authorities will be simply to notify affected persons and to encourage applicants to consult, rather than to consult themselves. Those improvements include training to support mandatory accreditation of members of hearing bodies, targeted one-on-one assistance to local authorities in need of support, and national guidance through the delivery and sharing of good practice between resource management practitioners. Pre-hearings will be encouraged, and the role of consent authorities as inquisitorial bodies will be clarified. Consent authorities will have enhanced powers to direct the hearing process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe president of Local Government New Zealand, Basil Morrison, described these proposals as \u201Ca major step in the right direction\u201D. I quote further: \u201CAs a country we need sustainable management of our physical and natural resources, but we also need to protect our economic growth and prosperity by investing in new development. This is the challenge constantly faced by local government, one which the Government has acknowledged with these changes.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EOf course, action has already been taken to reduce delays at the Environment Court. The number of delays in appeals to the court has been more than halved since 2001. An extra $1.2 million per year has seen an increase in the number of judges, commissioners, and administrative support people; yet the length and the cost of the appeal process continue to be a concern for some resource consent applicants. Current appeals to the Environment Court often duplicate processes at the consent authority hearing, and allow for new issues and evidence to be raised on appeal. The court will move away from a full hearing to a focused rehearing approach that concentrates on only the matters in contention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe process for making plans has also been criticised as cumbersome. After 12 years, some district plans have not yet been approved and others remain overly complex. This bill improves local policy and plan making. Streamlined plan-making processes will enable plans to become operative quicker, and reduce compliance costs and lengthy protracted debates. District and regional plans will now have to give effect to regional policy statements, and regional councils will have a more strategic role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill improves the quality of engagement with iwi authorities and is focused on plan and policy preparation processes. The Government will provide information to councils about the iwi authorities in each area or rohe. In terms of resource consents, iwi will have the same opportunities to participate as any other persons affected by an activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe bill also amends the Electricity Act of 1992. The amendments to sections 24 and 31 of that Act will clarify that the environmental effects of high-voltage works in the road corridor are best managed using processes under the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EWe in the Government are committed to protecting and preserving the unique aspects of New Zealand\u2019s natural environment. That means striking the right balance between our desire for a clean and healthy environment and our expectations for growth and opportunity. This bill provides for changes to the Resource Management Act and two changes to the Electricity Act. The package of improvements is about providing practical solutions and improved processes to make the law work better. By our provision of leadership and partnership with the community, with business, and with local government we will all get better environmental results. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002209552f9a5f324d3a8bfb7a45b16b2851\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209552f9a5f324d3a8bfb7a45b16b2851\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E This bill is another sorry chapter in the Government\u2019s book of failures in respect of resource management law. Anybody who believes that this bill will solve the serious and significant problems with the Resource Management Act either lives in fairyland or in David Benson-Pope\u2019s office\u2014or perhaps those are one and the same place. When we look at the history of shonky process, we see that it is no wonder this Government keeps messing up this important area of law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENational in 1999, with Simon Upton as Minister for the Environment, introduced a comprehensive and well-thought-through reform bill. Labour rejected that bill, yet 5 years later it is regurgitating those same ideas, and effectively pleading guilty and saying that it got it wrong. The select committee toiled away diligently for months on the bill, but it sat on the Order Paper for 22 months without the Government doing anything. Then in a mad rush the Government introduced another bill and passed it under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAgain today we are sitting under urgency, and we have had to suspend the Standing Orders to allow this bill even to be introduced. It is a shonky bill that has been advanced under a shonky process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us not underestimate how serious the problems are of the Resource Management Act. Back in 2001 the Government set up the business compliance cost panel, which came out and said that the No. 1 concern for business was the Resource Management Act. What did the Government do about that? Sweet nothing. It ignored the panel\u2019s report until this year when Marian Hobbs was sacked and the polls changed. Earlier this year in April the results of an international competitiveness study on New Zealand came out. It was disgraceful that in terms of environmental law New Zealand ranked No. 60 out of 60 places. We were dunce of the class for the quality of our environmental regulation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EEverybody in this country knows that we need to engineer more roads\u2014not engineer people as this Government wants to do\u2014yet Transit New Zealand says it will take up to 7 years to get consent for a new road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222ed5a8e681a48b99b9f026c22d0004d\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279bba83745174d28b38a214cd21a1735\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: That is what it said. I say that Mr Baldock should take responsibility and listen to what Transit is saying. Then, in only December of last year, Transpower stated in its annual report that there was no way New Zealand could address its substantial electricity supply issues unless there were changes to the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229b39132873d4c3fb92d6d376ea5653a\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Is that accurate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a627a5718cac487ca6df85a114289152\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Members opposite are chipping in because they know they are guilty. They know they have failed desperately in respect of issues to do with the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me give some other examples just in case members opposite are unaware of them. The Auckland City Council has to deal with 3,000 consent applications a year\u2014applications to just one council\u2014for people to be able to trim a tree. That is right\u20143,000 consent applications a year from poor old homeowners in Auckland who simply want to trim a tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen we have the disgraceful position that has occurred in the Queenstown lakes district whereby if people want to rent out their homes for any period less than 3 months they have to get a resource consent from their council. Will this bill fix those problems? Not on one\u2019s nelly. It does absolutely nothing to address those substantive issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe need look no further than the reactions to this bill. Let me read what the New Zealand Law Society said about the bill: \u201CFar from being a set of proposals that will reduce costs and delays being incurred under the Resource Management Act, the net result, from our collective experience, we have no doubt will be worse for everyone\u2014for councils, for industry, for community groups and ordinary members of the public.\u201D How can the Government stand up today and say that this is the solution when the Law Society says those things about the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us look at what the Government\u2019s friends say about the bill. The newly elected Mayor of Auckland and bosom buddy of Helen Clark, Dick Hubbard, said that this bill goes nowhere near far enough in changing the Act in order for Auckland to be able to deal with its infrastructure issues. So I say to the Government that even its friends say this bill is a lemon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen we come to some of the detailed issues. Why is it that members opposite are going to amend the Resource Management Act to make M\u0101ori iwi authorities into public bodies? That is a revolutionary constitutional change. I am sure that Clayton Cosgrove has not been telling his constituents in Waimakariri that he is off in Parliament saying that Ng\u0101i Tahu is no longer a private body but a public body that will have regulatory powers normally restricted to publicly elected bodies\u2014and that is a step backwards that takes us further down the road to having two standards of citizenship in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen there is the dopey idea that we will make all notification decisions by councils appealable to the Environment Court. If ever there were a stupid idea that would clog up the Environment Court and make it a nightmare for ordinary New Zealanders to try to get consents for doing very minor things, then that is it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIn no area has National been so detailed in its proposals for reform of the Act and in the sorts of ideas we think would make a material difference. In respect of direct Environment Court referrals, we have said let us send major projects straight to the Environment Court rather than go through all the process of a resource consent hearing. Is that in this bill? No, it is not, and the bill will not fix the substantial problem of major projects being subject to years of delay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENor do we see anything in this bill that will enable us to address the huge and growing problem of iwi holding communities to ransom and effectively asking for \u201Cbrownmail\u201D in order for projects to proceed. It is a tragedy that in a country that prides itself on a lack of corruption, the Resource Management Act, unreformed, will result in substantial problems, with people asking for payment or, alternatively, holding consents up for years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThere are a few ideas in this bill that National supports. In fact, three of them come straight out of our bill that Labour rejected back in 1999. But the idea that if we have accredited training for a few councillors then the huge problems with the Resource Management Act will somehow be solved, is simply foolish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill is a big disappointment. It says that Labour does not understand the importance of wealth creation, or the importance of the clear systems that will both ensure high environmental standards and reduce the costs, delays, and uncertainties so prevalent within the resource management industry of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I want to make is that it is a failure that this bill makes no changes to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. The Government believes those provisions are somehow sacrosanct, yet the Government itself has amended them twice. It did so in making national heritage a matter of national importance, and in protecting customary values. Until we amend Part 2 of the Act, New Zealand will continue to have problems, our economy will be held back, and our environment will not live up to the standards New Zealanders expect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022922bd14a80d141778c99a809df731c32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022922bd14a80d141778c99a809df731c32\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E The inconsistency of the last speech with reality can be gauged from the fact that the member claims that the Resource Management Act is a substantial impediment to New Zealand\u2019s growth, at a time when New Zealand has the second-highest growth rate in the OECD, under the very Act he criticises. That view is just not credible. There were major problems with the Resource Management Act when Labour came into office. People were gaming the rules and the system, and some close-to-blackmail tactics were going down as a consequence of the delays in hearing appeals. When we came into office, the average time it took to get a hearing in the Environment Court to appeal a council decision was about 18 months. We have reduced that to 6 months for ordinary cases and 3 months for urgent cases. A lot of the problems, unnecessary delays, and close-to-blackmail tactics that were becoming a bit prevalent at that time have been remedied through the better provisioning of the Environment Court, and then by getting over the backlog of plan references and decreasing delays as a consequence by two-thirds, so that they are now only a third as bad as they were and are getting very close to the expected ideal of less than 6 months for an ordinary appeal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EOn the suggestion that we are conferring special rights on iwi, it is right that M\u0101ori groups have a right to participate in the writing of plans. This legislation makes it clear that that is where their right of access to process exists. It also clarifies that they have no special right of participation in Resource Management Act matters when it comes to consents. M\u0101ori will have the same rights any other person has to participate in consent hearings, but no greater right. This legislation clarifies the law in that regard. At the moment, the law is uncertain. There are cases where applicants think they have to liaise with M\u0101ori in respect of a particular consent application, when that might not be necessary on the facts. This bill will resolve that ambiguity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EOn the issue of council support for this legislation, the Queenstown Lakes District Council\u2014which is in my electorate\u2014has the highest rate of consent applications per head of population in the country, because the area is experiencing the highest rate of population growth in Australasia. Some will say that the fact that so many applications have to be made points to failings in the Resource Management Act. I do not think it does; I think it just reflects the fact that this is a time of intense pressure and change that requires consent applications to be made and considered. I note that the council thinks these amendments are practical, and it does have day-to-day dealings with the Resource Management Act. I am not saying that the Queenstown Lakes District Council gets it perfectly right. I will say that the council is quite right in respect of the issue Dr Nick Smith raised of owners who rent out a house as commercial visitor accommodation. It would be quite unfair if one could rent out commercial quasi-hotel accommodation in residential housing in Queenstown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e28b755b630648eba528fff3e1b8af3a\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Come on\u2014it happens all over the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267c55a87a082464d85ebe2c7ed4c5750\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Brown says: \u201CCome on.\u201D But the reality at present is that we have, at one end of the market in Queenstown, deliberate and prolonged use of quasi-residential accommodation as commercial visitor accommodation. I do not think the council is trying to get people who rent out their holiday homes for a short period once a year; it is trying to get, and to treat in the same way as all other hotel providers, people who are providing hotel accommodation through private residences. So popular is Queenstown as a tourist destination that that is a very profitable thing to do at the moment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThis legislation will make some sensible improvements to procedures under the Resource Management Act. I am one of those who think that it is the procedures that need to be looked at, rather than the principles of the Act. I think the principles of the Act were sound when it was passed, and they remain sound now. I agree with Michael Barnett of the chambers of commerce, who said that many of the problems relating to the Resource Management Act lie not in the law but in its implementation at council level. Again, prior to this Government being elected, the Ministry for the Environment had no systems in place to ensure that best practice was copied in the different councils around New Zealand. As a consequence, we had inadequate liaison with councils and we had bad practice not being fixed. In defence of councils, I note that the Resource Management Act was then relatively new. We were going through the first round of plans under that Act in the transition from the old Town and Country Planning Act, so they had a lot to learn. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI think this legislation is worthy. I am sure the tension between speed of process and not making the first hearing too difficult will be teased out in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is an area that I am interested to look at, as I am sure other select committee members will be. We will look at whether the proposals\u2014which, I have to say, seem sound on the face of it, making the Environment Court a court of appeal that focuses on whether the decision of the council was correct rather than on re-litigating the whole contest\u2014represent the best approach. I am happy to see this bill reported to the select committee. I am a member of that committee, and I am sure that we will give the bill the attention it deserves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4bb969e31794af186fbd154f6cd1ca6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4bb969e31794af186fbd154f6cd1ca6\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E When I picked up my copy of the bill and took it home and looked at it, and thought back over the past 5 years, I, like Dr Nick Smith, found a significant similarity to the work done in 1999 by the Upton committee. In fact, if I had time, I could go through five examples where, suspiciously, in a not-too-subtle way, the same concepts are embodied in the bill before us. That is very surprising. When I came to the House I, like Dr Nick Smith, picked up in the select committee the almost abandoned work that the earlier committee had done and that the incoming Labour Government had slashed with a very large red pen. New Zealand First claimed that the time was appropriate, in the almost redundant 2002 bill, to thoroughly review the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIn the view of New Zealand First, it was, after a decade, the right time to see whether the Act, and Part II in particular, was still valid\u2014in other words, whether the pre-1990s thinking embodied in the Palmer concepts, which were part of the gestation of the Act and were finally brought to the House by the National Government and virtually embodied first in its bill and then in the Act, still fitted New Zealand a decade later. For our part, we do not believe it does. We believe that Part II of the Act should have been looked at, and it was not. The part we particularly believe should be looked at\u2014and we will be encouraging submissions on this\u2014is the part that defines M\u0101ori and the Treaty of Waitangi. We believe that the Treaty of Waitangi clause has no place in Part II of the Act. In fact, we believe that section 6 of Part II needs to be further defined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThere is no place for the Treaty of Waitangi clause in legislation in 2004. There is a place to emphasise in detail in Part II of the Resource Management Act exactly what is meant by the aspects of M\u0101ori culture that are mentioned, particularly in section 6. We also believe absolutely that there is no place in this day and age for an ill-defined concept of spirituality. New Zealand First\u2019s concern is that Part II of the Act should have been addressed in the bill. The concept of spirituality that has become an indefinite part of Resource Management Act decisions, as recently as the Genesis decision with regard to the Whanganui River, is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter for personal conscience. It ought not to have had a place, and has no further place in resource consents. In saying that, we believe that sacred sites and other tangible evidence of M\u0101ori culture should have impact, but not to the degree that Part II of the Act allows and that jurisdictions have said should be there. We strongly support submitters coming to the select committee with their mind on the relevance of Part II of the Act and on the broad concepts that guided that part. Is the term \u201Csustainability\u201D one that we still need to embody; if so, what does it mean in 2004, and so on? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWe in New Zealand First were very conscious when we came to look at the bill that there is a backdrop. That backdrop is the immense amount of work done by councils in formulating the present state of planning\u2014the millions and millions of dollars of ratepayer expenditure and, to some degree, taxpayer expenditure in formulating plans. More important than the cost is the large number of local people who have had an input into plans over the last 11 years. Therefore, some of the suggestions in this bill, particularly the national statements and the potential impact caused directly by cutting across local and regional thinking, are cause for alarm. I hope that submitters will come back to us and tell us exactly what that means. The other issue with regard to planning is the issue of the lengthy and abundant jurisdictional judgments and decisions about various aspects of planning and consents. There is a vast body out there that any change must have regard to. Therefore this bill ought to have addressed that in a pragmatic way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe most significant factor in the bill is that, against a decade or more of local, regional, and national planning, with only one policy statement with regard to coastal policy before the country, we are about to have, should this bill finally be transposed into law, a whole body of national statements at this late stage. That is in opposition, of course, to the work that has been done over the past decade. In other words, if this bill is admitted in its final form, we are about to move into a \u201Ccommand and control\u201D approach to environmental decision-making, whereby decision makers merely apply regulatory statements that are prepared by central government. That is not in keeping with the whole history of participation, a democratic approach, and a pluralistic approach in public law, which have been the hallmarks of the Resource Management Act. Therefore, that is a matter we would look at very closely, and we hope submitters will too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIn other words, a light-handed approach in the past has been the mode. We are about to have, or could have, a heavy-handed approach to strongly influence, and to have a marked impact on, local authorities. With that comes the very clear intention in some of the subtle, or not so subtle, language that is tantamount to telling local authorities how to go about their day-to-day tasks, how to perform, and that central government bureaucracy can dictate to local authorities on matters that local authorities would have to fund. That, in my short time here, has been one of the hallmarks of this Government. Through its legislation it has imposed vast costs upon local bodies. Unless this is watched very closely, and I have suspicions indicating otherwise, this could be one of the very first results here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo we have a heightened central government interest. We have a modified call-in process that is very little used but is about to be used if this bill should become an Act in the future. No one quite knows what this call-in process is, how diverse it will be, or, more important, where the local council comes into it at the end of the process. There was an abridged call-in process in regard to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. In the end, the Government turned aside and came to the House with more proper and, we hope, effective legislation. We have a call-in process that goes down to private plan changes, and we saw that with regard to the Aquaculture Reform Bill that has just gone through the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First hopes that submitters will go through this bill with great care. We believe that the pre-hearing meetings should be speeded up. We believe that they have a real part to play and have not been used in the past. A clear definition of \u201Cpre-hearing\u201D\u2014more than is in this bill\u2014will certainly mean an efficient, ongoing process. We also believe that the Environment Court could have a lesser role to perform than it has had so far. If there were consistency between the pre-hearing process, as a major definitive process, and a shorter judicial hearing as a result, with only some cases going to the Environment Court on points of law, rather than having, as now, total rehearings, then that would be in the best interests of the country. If this bill removes blockages that are there now, with regard to the speed of being able to get a consent, it is sound. But I do not see that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ELast of all, with regard to the bill, was there a necessity for change, and has it been expressed? The answer is yes. It is clear. Has it been answered in this bill? That is very doubtful. Is there a constituency out there supporting the change, such as farmers, community groups, local authorities, industry, lawyers, and the community? Yes there is, but this bill does not very clearly define what that could be. Is the magnitude of what this bill envisages such that we will have real change and reform? The answer is that it is doubtful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo New Zealand First believes that this bill should be concerned, in 2004, primarily with promoting the sustainable management of resources, which is about understanding people\u2019s needs and understanding the capacity of our national and physical resources to meet the present and future needs of the country. New Zealand First will support the passage of this bill to the select committee, despite our many reservations\u2014some of which I have just expressed\u2014thereby affording submitters the opportunity to define further what New Zealanders believe should be the future scope of this bill for the common good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022733835469c1b4d7b8286200697786c89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022733835469c1b4d7b8286200697786c89\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I realise that with a few short days to go until Christmas one should be filled with joie de vivre and the joy of Christmas and be charitable to all men\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278a0106ab57a4984bad10e8cb5cdbaed\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: And women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ee952565354a87b7264df55542c511\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and women, as the member points out. But to be charitable to David Benson-Pope over this bill is probably to go to the well too many times. I was stunned to hear the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act tell members that the Act was designed to protect the environment for future generations. I ask the Minister to read the Resource Management Act. It is about the sustainable development and management of our natural and physical resources. We have a Labour Minister in charge of the bill who really knows nothing about the whole process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act has become known by virtually all resource users in this country as probably the most obnoxious Act that New Zealand has. Some of us held our breath in the vain hope that a review of the Resource Management Act would remove the nonsense from it. That has not happened. The vexatious objections will still occur on a constant basis. Nothing has been done about that, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act has ensured that no significant project has taken place in this country since it was passed back in 1991. I asked the Parliamentary Library to list for me the major projects of over half a billion dollars that have occurred since the Resource Management Act was passed. The answer was none. There has been not one project costing over half a billion dollars. I have to drag it out of my memory, but there were only about five projects costing between about $100 million and $450 million. That is outrageous. I draw attention to the member for Otago\u2019s speech, in which he said it was remarkable that we have significant growth in this country. I think it is a huge credit to the productive sector that it has still managed to do a fantastic job of producing wealth for this country, despite the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EThis bill is really about recognising the need for the Government to fast track projects that it approves of. I am sure that members recall the Meridian Energy project down in the Waitaki Valley that fell over recently due to the Resource Management Act. There was little doubt that there would be claim, counterclaim, Environment Court hearings, and appeals, and that the project would be stopped. I do not know whether Project Aqua was needed, but we most certainly do need power generation in this country. That proposal by Meridian Energy was stopped by the Resource Management Act, and I am told that during this coming winter, we can look forward to power cuts, regardless of the state of the lakes in this country. So when people all get up to vote in the spring after having a cold shower, they should remember who caused the problem\u2014Helen Clark, her Government, and the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EWhy is this bill before the House? I said a moment ago that it is for Government projects that need special treatment. It is not projects designed by businessmen from Southland to Northland that will be assisted by this bill; it will be the projects the Minister considers necessary to provide infrastructural benefits to this country. I am not opposed to that. I think the Resource Management Act should be fast tracked. I think projects of significance should be fast tracked. But then I also think a dairy farmer in Southland or a sawmiller in Northland should have his or her project fast tracked or given the same treatment that we will be giving\u2014whether or not we like it\u2014to all Government-approved projects. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EA pylon project in the North Island just came up recently. It is the big project that Transpower is undertaking through some of the best farmland in this country\u2014and I say that as a South Islander, which is saying something. I went through that area just recently, and there is some magnificent country there. Frankly, the thought of those\u2014how do we describe them\u2014awful Eiffel Towers going up through that pristine, magnificent farmland fills me with abject horror. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I recognise, and my party certainly recognises, that electricity is the lifeblood of this country. We have to do that project, but my concern is really whether this bill will protect the rights of those landowners. With the infrastructural changes to their land, will the aesthetic qualities and the natural environment of their land be enhanced, and will they receive adequate compensation? The answer to that, I am perfectly certain, will absolutely be no. There will be no enhancement of the environment and the compensation will be a few paltry dollars that will pass, but the towers will be there forever. The people will look out of their kitchen windows in the morning and see those towers that the Resource Management Act and the Labour Government have given them, because the Government is putting through special legislation to drive those sorts of projects. That is called \u201Cspecial consultation\u201D. I think we will see, and have seen from the Resource Management Act, selective consultation. We have seen self-interest driving the Resource Management Act. We have seen, and will see, more centralised control, more ministerial discretion, and more ministerial direction as a result of the bill being debated at this time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EAs a member of the farming community, I am well aware of the need to ensure that our natural environment is cared for and protected, and there needs to be some process to ensure that that does occur. But I want the same standard applied to the Government that the Government is demanding should be applied to Farmer Brown, the sawmiller, or any other person who is engaged in industry in this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI have very, very significant concerns, and I warn the Government over a particular aspect of this bill that the select committee will, no doubt, consider\u2014the allocation of natural resources, especially around the allocation of water, especially in the South Island. Let me tell this Government that if it wants demonstrations of a size that make the recent M\u0101ori land march, the protest against the \u201Cfart tax\u201D, and even the Destiny Church\u2019s protest outside Parliament appear to be all rolled into one and doubled, it should start tinkering with water rights in the South Island and taking away the water rights of every farmer or landowner who has invested heavily in those rights. I warn this Government that it must be exceedingly careful of that aspect. I regret deeply that this bill is likely to go to a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u002200153d6789254359b89aa9545783e3ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200153d6789254359b89aa9545783e3ed\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E This bill claims to be about improving the Resource Management Act, but it is actually a fundamental change to the original purpose of the Act. The Minister says that the bill will improve the Act without compromising environmental outcomes or public participation, but what we have is vastly increased ministerial powers to override the decisions of communities and local councils. The bill has six main objectives, but not one of them even pretends to be about improving environmental quality or slowing environmental destruction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that the National Party would be proud of. It has campaigned for years to make the Resource Management Act more developer-friendly, and if National had introduced this bill a few years ago, Labour would be expressing outrage alongside Green members. But there is now little difference between Labour and National on the question of public participation in planning or the protection of the natural environment. There have been numerous Resource Management Act amendments from both the larger parties in the House since the Act was passed in 1991, and none of them has been aimed at improving environmental outcomes. There have been numerous reviews of how the Act is working, of compliance costs, of timeliness, and of how well it works for developers, but never has there been a review of whether it works for the environment. The fact is that, aided by numerous amendments and case law, it often does not work for the environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ENew Zealand\u2019s primary piece of environmental legislation has increasingly become an Act for developers, and this bill takes it further in that direction. It is legislation that is driven by Government panic that democracy may actually work, and that communities may make decisions about how they want to live that do not accord with the Government\u2019s plans. We know, from the Growth and Innovation Advisory Board survey, that most New Zealanders value their quality of life and the quality of their environment more highly than faster economic growth. But that is not the Government\u2019s objective, so it has given itself draconian ministerial powers to override local decision-making and ram through unpopular projects. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EAll of this is supposed to be in the national interest, but there is no definition of \u201Cnational interest\u201D in the bill. It seems that the national interest is whatever the Minister says it is. We do, however, have a definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D, which is appropriate because this is actually an infrastructure bill. The ministerial overrides are primarily to enable a smooth passage for infrastructure projects like motorways, large dams, hydro projects, transmission lines, and landfills. In each case where an unpopular giant project is proposed to be foisted on a local community, there will be alternatives. Instead of motorways, we could have better public transport and urban planning; instead of hydro projects, we could have wind or energy efficiency; instead of landfills, we could have better resource recovery; and instead of transmission lines, we could have more local generation and fuel switching. But only the large, expensive, unsustainable option is to receive a free ride under this legislation\u2014further entrenching the dominance that it already has. Further evidence for that is the addition of \u201Cpromoting timely and effective provision of infrastructure\u201D to the functions of regional councils. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ETo disguise just how draconian this bill is, the Government has had to resort to doublespeak. The first objective of the bill is supposed to give clear guidance to decision makers \u201Con how to take national interest matters into account\u201D. This so-called guidance takes a number of forms. When we turn to clauses 20 and 21, we find that guidance may involve forcing all councils to abandon environmental standards that they have set with their communities for air and water, and replace them with lower standards set by Government. Environmental standards provided for since the Act was passed have been unused until recently, when standards for dioxins and for air quality were developed. The Greens have always supported having standards and have frequently called for this part of the Act to be used. But the Act provides for standards to be a minimum, below which councils may not go. Now they are to become a maximum level of environmental quality, which may not be exceeded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EWe also find that environmental standards may be used to require a council to make a certain activity a permitted use, with no conditions and no requirements for a resource consent. Standards can now relate to infrastructure, rather than environmental quality. One can only wonder what unpopular activities this is designed for: food irradiation plants, coal mines, or transmission lines. Environmental standards are, by this bill, to become anti-environmental standards, which is another example of doublespeak. Further guidance is to be available in the form of national policy statements. As first conceived in the Act, these were robust statements of policy that would survive several changes of Government, and guide local decision-making. To achieve this broad level of support, they were developed by an independent board of inquiry, with a consultative public process. But this was too democratic for successive Governments to use, and they never did. So in 2003 it was streamlined to make it easier for Ministers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EBut we still have no national policy statements, so now it is to become a creature of the Minister, who can use any process he likes, as long as there is an opportunity for public comment\u2014not hearings\u2014and as long as someone reports to him on the submissions. So the whole process could be undertaken by a junior staff member and the Minister. This will, of course, not have the robustness intended by the Act, and local authorities will be bound by national policy statements that change with every Government. Consent hearings and applications for plan changes can now be snaffled up by the Minister and given to an appointed board at the request of applicants who think they might not get what they want from the local community. There will be no appeal, except on points of law, from the decisions of these ministerially appointed boards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThere are also serious concerns about the changes to the way local decision-making will work. If an applicant fails to give relevant information about a project, a council can no longer require that that information be provided. A developer can refuse to provide it and effectively dare the council to turn down the application for that reason. Theoretically, the applicant will have to weigh up that risk\u2014that his or her project might fail to get consent, because not enough information was provided. In practice, we know that will not happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ECouncils will, instead, make decisions in ignorance, not knowing what they do not know. The less information that is disclosed the less opportunity there is for objectors to contest it. It is a recipe for non-disclosure and for decisions based on poor quality information. The ministry tried it on in 1999, and it was thrown out by the select committee with the Minister\u2019s agreement. Now it is trying it on again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe first consent hearing by the council, or its appointees, is to be made much more formal. We strongly support the training to be provided, and required, for councillors on hearing committees. We also support encouragement for those on the hearing committees to test evidence, but that cannot replace cross-examination. The proposal is that, with a stronger first hearing, the Environment Court should not rehear any evidence that has been heard, and no new evidence should be able to be presented except with the leave of the court. The only outcome I can foresee is that every Environment Court appeal will begin with several days of legal wrangling about whether certain pieces of evidence have been properly tested. It will not be an easy decision for the court as there are no transcripts of council hearings. With sufficiently sharp and well-paid lawyers it will be possible to establish that all evidence that is disputed must be heard again and cross-examined. The hearing will be made longer and more complex, and tilted against community groups. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ECouncil hearings are stacked against community groups in several ways. They must have all their evidence and witness briefs in at the start\u2014easy for a corporate with paid staff, but an onerous task for unpaid community groups. They may not bring new evidence later. The council has new powers to strike out a submission if it finds it to be vexatious or frivolous, and refuse to hear evidence if it finds it not to be relevant. Lawyers will spend a lot of time arguing at the new compulsory pre-hearing meetings that their opponents should not be heard at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EFinally, to complement the foreshore and seabed legislation, a local authority may, after satisfying many subsections, set up a joint management agreement with another body such as an iwi organisation, for joint decision-making. But it may then act alone without the agreement of its partner, and it may terminate the joint-management agreement unilaterally with 20 days\u2019 notice. I personally cannot see iwi organisations flocking to take advantage of this generous provision to participate in managing natural resources in which they have a particular interest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Greens will not vote for this legislation. There are some clauses we support but they are vastly outweighed by the matters I have mentioned. We will, however, listen hard to submissions. We will get involved strongly in the select committee process and work to improve the bill at that stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00224ddd7aef709c44eb927e6e702e04f98e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ddd7aef709c44eb927e6e702e04f98e\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I am very, very happy to rise on behalf of United Future and happy to see this day, when we introduce this Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill, because it is another step forward in the process of reforming the Resource Management Act and of making it more business-friendly and also more environmentally sound in the management of our resources. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWhen the 47th Parliament convened more than 2 years ago, United Future made it clear to the Government that we considered reform of the Resource Management Act to be a priority. When the Government asked us for our support to pass the legislation known as the Resource Management Bill (No 2), which had been sitting on the Order Paper for more than 3 years, we gave it our support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThat legislation sat on the Order Paper throughout the entire parliamentary term before this one and, although it could have been passed if National had worked constructively with the Government, it sat here, stalled completely. The Green Party, of course, saw to the fact that it was stalled. It was stuck until United Future arrived into this Parliament and began to work constructively to improve the Resource Management Act. We had to accept some omissions from that bill to get it passed. We are not going to hold out for everything we want. We are prepared to work for some common-sense improvements, as long as they are heading in the right direction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe Hon Nick Smith mentioned in his speech that some of the amendments dropped from the original bill introduced by National in 1999 are now appearing in this one. The member should be very happy, because that is the long-term approach that United Future takes. We do not get everything all the time, but if we keep working constructively with the Government, ultimately we achieve improvements that are of benefit to the country and to the business community. The Greens, National, and New Zealand First had 3 years to work on that bill, but they did not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWhen we gave our support to the legislation, we received a great deal of criticism in the House. At the time there was much criticism until the references to spiritual beliefs, cultural landscapes, and ancestral landscapes had been dropped. Even then the National Party spokesperson on the environment was willing to admit that it was a pretty good bill. We passed it and we were ready to move on to more amendments. That was not the end of the matter and we have continuously hounded, reminded, urged, and pushed the Government to further reform the Resource Management Act process. However, reforming the Resource Management Act is a process that requires balance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe speaker before me from the ACT party gave a very curious speech, really.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ef69b2ed474afc85c08a4da77696aa\u0022\u003EGerrard Eckhoff\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was the Greens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf02a65ab7ab4d1a8ce6282a9043ba35\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: Before the Green member spoke, the ACT member said that this bill would be all about fast tracking projects. Then he said that everything\u2014every small project\u2014should be fast tracked, and he spoke about the need to protect the environment. He then spoke about the need for people to have their rights recognised and to be compensated, and that is a very curious balance. That is what the Resource Management Act is trying to do. It is trying to find a balance between environmental protection, people\u2019s rights, and the need to move our economy forward and do sustainable development\u2014as the member has said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAdditional funding, which the Government has recently provided to improve the tracking systems, and additional judges, have led to a marked improvement in the operation of the Environment Court, reducing the waiting list down to as little as 3 to 6 months for decisions in most cases. We commend the Government for that. That move alone has been hugely significant in reducing the number of vexatious and frivolous objections, yet there is still more that could be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EMembers will remember the passage of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, which was a very interesting and informative process. It gave many insights into possible amendments that could be useful in the main Resource Management Act, and some of those experiences have been brought into this legislation. It certainly highlighted the need to address consent and resource allocation processes in the light of national-interest tests, which will occur reasonably frequently as we upgrade and add much-needed infrastructure across the country. The Transpower upgrade of the national grid is one example, and there is the construction of roads, rail networks, and power generation projects, to cite others. We had a lot of discussions with the Government and, in particular, with the Associate Minister for the Environment and officials from the Ministry for the Environment, and we concluded that the next reform needed to focus on the process rather than amendments to Part 2 of the bill\u2014the major foundations of the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThat brings me to this bill, the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to further improve the working of the Resource Management Act and also to amend the Electricity Act. It is the culmination of a 4-month review of the Resource Management Act, which focused on improving the quality of decisions and processes\u2014that is, reducing uncertainty, unnecessary delays, costs, and abuse of processes without sacrificing robust environmental outcomes or public participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EResearch on eight major projects has shown that it took approximately 6 to 8 months for the council process\u2014and an average cost of $0.6 million to the applicant\u2014for the hearing process. That period was in addition to an average period of 2 years, at an average cost of $1.3 million for the applicant, to develop a proposal and prepare applications. All projects were appealed to the Environment Court, adding an average period of 16 months at an average cost of $1.4 million. That is not acceptable for our economy and for our business community, and it is why this legislation is designed to help improve and speed up that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAs I said earlier, recent improvements in the Environment Court have substantially reduced the time of delays on appeals and are likely to have flow-on effects for costs. Applicants have expressed concern about third parties who delay consultation processes, make ill-informed submissions, make vexatious or frivolous appeals, and are not accountable for the cost or delay they cause to the approval processes. Anecdotal evidence indicated inconsistencies between councils in their processes and decisions. There are perceptions that decision making can be biased and, in some cases, that decision makers themselves lack the relevant skills and knowledge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe key measure in the bill that will focus on those outcomes is the establishment of a requirement that the majority membership of hearing panels is accredited for hearing resource consents, private plan changes, designations, and heritage orders. We welcome this move, because there is an expectation that elected officials or others who sit on consents and hearing panels have the skills necessary to make decisions that are consistent across the country. As an elected council member myself in 2001, I know I had a huge amount to learn about the Resource Management Act, and I would have benefited tremendously from going through such an accreditation programme. I believe this move will be welcomed by local government bodies around the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe bill also focuses on empowering all hearing panels with more inquisitorial powers, thereby increasing the robustness of the first local authority hearing. Limiting appeals to the Environment Court to testing the merits of the first hearing is a very good move indeed, instead of simply repeating the hearing through the de novo process. The bill will also provide new mechanisms for non-local decision making, which will build on existing ministerial call-in processes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe bill addresses many other things, and I look forward to those things being submitted on in the select committee stage, where I am sure that we will make many, many amendments and improvements to this legislation in its draft form. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThis bill, which is eagerly awaited by the business community, Resource Management Act practitioners, planners, and local government politicians and staff, will be welcome today as we pass it through its first reading. United Future is pleased to have played an important role in bringing this bill to the House, and we will wholeheartedly support its expeditious passage through Parliament. We look forward to receiving many submissions in the select committee and, despite the early report-back date, we do not believe that submitters need to be concerned this will limit their opportunity for input. It simply means that because of the importance of this reform to the New Zealand economy, committee members will devote extra time to ensure that it can be reported back and passed by this House as soon as possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future made a commitment at the beginning of this term of Parliament, and we intend to ensure that no action on our part will prevent the completion of that commitment before the expiry of this parliamentary term. I commend this bill to the House for referral to select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u00226c959588c12f4c14afe2c278f65e155a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c959588c12f4c14afe2c278f65e155a\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E I have enjoyed listening to the debate this afternoon, because it has largely been a considered debate. However, I was rather surprised with some of the comments made by Mr Eckhoff about the Resource Management Act. I just remind Mr Eckhoff that the Act was largely supported by both sides of the House, and it was passed by National with the support of ACT. Mr Eckhoff should just keep eating bananas, because I understand that they are good for memory. I also remember that Mr Eckhoff has a penchant for farming kiwis to protect their future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003ENick Smith made an interesting contribution, but I do have to say that National talks an awful lot, in a very populist vein and a very superficial manner, about what it will do about the Resource Management Act. I suggest that National will do nothing of any substance about the Resource Management Act, other than a little bit of window dressing and a little bit of tinkering here and there that will do nothing to change the Act\u2019s substance at all, because it knows only too well that most responsible New Zealanders would oppose its, so far, dramatic and draconian suggestions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EThis bill is a good bill. A lot of consideration has gone into it. It is essential to provide leadership on issues of such importance to New Zealand. The changes to the Resource Management Act will focus on improving the quality of decisions and processes by increasing certainty, reducing costs and delays, and ensuring consistency. Of course, consistency is what the vast majority of New Zealanders who have to work within the Resource Management Act are seeking. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EThis Government is absolutely committed to protecting and preserving the unique aspects of New Zealand\u2019s very, very special natural environment. That, of course, means that we have to strike the right balance between everyone\u2019s desire for a clean, healthy environment and our country\u2019s expectations for growth and opportunity. This is a good bill, and I am very pleased to support its passage through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u00221795ae61b9aa475fad880bcf56e74bee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221795ae61b9aa475fad880bcf56e74bee\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (National\u2014Taranaki-King Country):\u003C/span\u003E There is one comment made by the previous speaker that I agree with, and it is that this legislation needs leadership. So far, from this Government, through two Parliaments, we have seen absolutely none. The main part of the bill before us today was introduced as a discussion document in the mid-1990s. It evolved from that through a variety of committees, including a 1998-99 select committee, which brought to Parliament 12 recommendations of substantial change. I think this legislation touches on about four of them. The recommendations that came out of that select committee were then taken up by the incoming Minister, Marian Hobbs, and a red pen was put through every single one of them. In other words, they were dumped. What do we have here today? We have a road to Damascus experience from this Government, which is saying: \u201CWell, actually, some of those things may have been so. They may have been. We\u2019re not going to stand in the House and say they are, or were; we are just saying they may have been so.\u201D But we oppose this bill on the basis that it does not represent that kind of view for all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EWhat we have here today is proposed legislation that includes only those who have the ear of the Government. I say to the Government members who may take another call at some stage, as this bill progresses through the House, to explain to me why major State-owned enterprises will be given special treatment, as proposed here, but the average joe\u2014the hard-worker, the average farmer, the average businessman, the average commercial entity that wants to go about its business and enter into some kind of development\u2014is excluded. Why do they not get the same treatment? Somebody should explain that to me. In the Taranaki - King Country electorate, the seven territorial authorities and the three regional councils will still be able to inflict their view of what the Resource Management Act stands for on the average farmer or business, but if Meridian Energy, or similar, wants to come through that electorate with a development, it will be given a different set of rules to work with. Why is that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EMembers opposite should listen to their new-found bosom buddy, the muesli man from Auckland, the Mayor of Auckland, when he says that the proposed Resource Management Act legislation will not go anywhere near far enough towards fixing the problems in major infrastructure in New Zealand, particularly roading in Auckland. I repeat the comments that have been made previously. What Auckland needs\u2014as do other cities such as Wellington and Tauranga and other major areas where roading problems are clearly obvious\u2014is engineering in the roads, not engineering in the people. The Government is totally ignoring those requests. As I said earlier, this legislation started in the 45th Parliament, went through the 46th Parliament, and now, in the 47th Parliament, it is still being tinkered with around the edges. I ask Government members why they cannot accept all the sensible work done earlier by a number of people who understand this issue inside out. Why can they not accept that, and why has that recommendation not been taken up in full? I say to United Future members, if they are to assist this Government in getting this legislation through\u2014and it appears as though that is the case\u2014why did they not, given that they hold all the bargaining chips, as it were, dig in and get the reform to the Resource Management Act that they know, and that everybody else in New Zealand knows, should take place? Why did they not do that? Why did they roll over? Why did they accept a piecemeal, incremental, bit-by-bit change to this legislation? Why could United Future not have stood its ground and come up with something that most New Zealanders would have accepted and on which it would have had substantial majority support in this House? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI think that this legislation has come about as a result of the fiasco we saw with Project Aqua. I cannot be sure that that is so, but I suspect that the Minister came under much pressure at that time. One hundred million dollars was spent investigating that project\u2014a project he ultimately dropped. On top of that, of course, the small-business committee came back to the Government and recommended that the single biggest barrier to growth and business in this country was the Resource Management Act. So that, combined with the Project Aqua fiasco, brought the Minister, a relatively new Minister, to the conclusion that perhaps he would go back and look at the earlier work and see whether he could pick out some bits that would help us to move this thing forward. I ask that Minister why he did not do the job right the first time. Why could he not bring himself to accept that his predecessor, Marian Hobbs, had made a huge mistake when she allowed herself to be hijacked by the very left of the political spectrum, by those who are here supposedly to protect the environment, the Green Party? Why could he not bring himself to the conclusion, particularly with the support of United Future, that he could have taken a substantial step forward with the Resource Management Act? Why did the Minister ignore the hundreds of thousands of submissions\u2014and it is that many now\u2014over a long period of time since the mid-1990s? Why did he ignore those submissions? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI know that the other Minister here in the House, Minister Swain, who sat through the submissions to the business development committee, could have told him in minute detail some of the concerns Business New Zealand has with the Resource Management Act and the impact it has on business development. Why did he not implement the leadership that the member for Whanganui spoke of earlier when he had the numbers? Of course, the Minister sits there completely oblivious to what those people have been talking about. He has no idea of business, like the rest of his Cabinet colleagues. He has no idea of what is needed to fix the Resource Management Act. So, at this eleventh hour, the Government has introduced this piecemeal, unacceptable amendment to the Resource Management Act, which will not go anywhere near far enough towards doing what is needed to fix it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThe bill also amends the Electricity Act, and we have to ask why we are putting in place a special, one-off, piece of legislation just because we have a major problem now with electricity generation and the transmission thereof. I again say to United Future that here was an opportunity to enhance all sorts of energy development. Thousands of projects are on hold, because the people involved have looked at the problem of getting them through the consent process under the Resource Management Act and said that it is all too tough\u2014in fact, State-owned enterprises have. They have said they will go over to Australia and build generation capacity in Australia, because it is much easier to build it there. I do not know whether the Minister is going to pass another amendment to the Resource Management Act so we can build transmission lines across the ocean to bring some of that power back home. Maybe he is; I would not know. What I do know is that New Zealand investment in energy generation is going on in Australia when we desperately need it here in New Zealand. The reason for that, overwhelmingly, would be that it is too difficult to get through the consent process in New Zealand in order for it to happen here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003ESo I ask the Minister and the Government why they do not go back to the earlier work that was done. Why not have a look at where the real problems are? Why not adopt the whole revamp of the Resource Management Act, as proposed by Owen McShane? Why not go back to the original principles\u2014prescribed by Geoffrey Palmer, one of Labour\u2019s former Prime Ministers\u2014and find out how those principles are being implemented by some of the district and regional councils that have completely distorted the original intent as drafted by Geoffrey Palmer and those who were involved in the first instance? I say to the Minister that he should take the opportunity now to fix it once and for all while he has the support of United Future and does not need the loony-left vote to get it through. He has United Future\u2019s support. He has the numbers. He will have support from business, and he will probably pick up other political party support in this House. He should fix the Resource Management Act, and save New Zealanders from the endless grind that is holding this country back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u00226678dc51c8554742a3c4d45580681604\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226678dc51c8554742a3c4d45580681604\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I found that last statement, which asked what role central government could play regarding local government, a bit rich, considering that the National Government for 9 years of this legislation did not fund the support of local government in that area. It did absolutely nothing. I rise to support the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The speech by Dr Nick Smith was sadly predictable. I had it reported to me. As usual, he focused on process, not substance. As usual, he advocated gutting the Resource Management Act to allow unfettered development. As usual, he talked about shutting people out of the process and taking decision making away from local government. Those are the solutions his Government put forward in 1999. We did not proceed with that bill, which would have been disastrous for our environment. Instead, we focused on solutions that would deliver for the environment, for the community, for business, and for M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003ESince that time, the National Party has always got terribly embarrassed by that. We did something it never did. We properly resourced the Environment Court. At the first meeting of the Resource Management Law Association I attended, in Dunedin, people asked me whether I, as Minister, would listen, because National never listened. They needed that number of judges and those sorts of resources. And did we deliver them? We halved the backlog of cases. We ensured that new cases got to hearing within 6 months, not the 36 months it took when Nick Smith\u2019s Government left office in 1999. Unlike National, we actually work with local councils to help them improve their practice. We have put an extraordinary amount of money in there. Obviously, that speaker does not know what he is talking about and never goes online to look at the best-practice website. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EWe have also produced the first national environment standards\u2014those on air quality. Did the previous National Government do anything about that? That was in the bill and absolutely nothing was done. The solutions were all ones that were raised by the business compliance cost study. We have had results in that area. In 2004, there was a 39.2 percent decrease in environmental compliance costs, compared with 2003. Our solutions are improving the implementation of the Resource Management Act without compromising the environment. The bill carries on that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EEnvironmental law always aims to strike a balance between protecting the environment and allowing development. We are not business unfriendly, I say to the previous speaker. We assess that balance and ensure that it is correct in an ongoing process. The bill makes some sensible changes that improve on process under the Resource Management Act. I am sure the previous speaker is very well aware of the issues around transmission and what that costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EI have attended meetings up in his area with all those people and with transmission representatives, trying to work out a way in which we can allow people to have their say and to work forward to some solutions, but not to stop what is absolutely necessary for our power, which is power we have put into this bill in order to facilitate the process. As it was, under the previous legislation, it left it and abandoned it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe most telling thing about Nick Smith\u2019s earlier speech was his fascination with amending Part 2. He talks about providing work for lawyers, but for God\u2019s sake, what would amending Part 2 do to case law? That part sets the environmental bar protecting our environment. The bill does not lower the bar. As I have already said, it focuses on practical changes to get improvement and implementation without compromising the environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EMake no mistake, if this bill had been put forward by National, that environmental bar would be lowered. It is money and degradation at all costs. Development can take place anywhere, particularly on the Nelson coastline, at any time and without public involvement, and that is what separates Labour from National. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe bill ensures the public will have a say in decision making, although it provides a range of processes through which that can occur. It has a variety. It is on solution, mediation, and problem solving, and it is sensible, as different projects have different requirements, and local authorities should have different tools to lead them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EI also heard members on the other side of the Chamber quote the Law Society. Of course, they neglected to quote the Law Society\u2019s latest statements, in which they recognised that many of their earlier concerns were overstated or could be dealt with. The Law Society has now joined the mainstream of resource management practitioners in seeing these changes as practical and workable. It is only Opposition members who remain isolated in their outdated views about outlawing public participation and fast tracking development at the cost of the environment. This is a good bill. It is a well argued and well-thought-out bill, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2ad0263c68e46e2ba58245b78681b9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2ad0263c68e46e2ba58245b78681b9a\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Let me make New Zealand First\u2019s position clear from the outset. We will support the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill going to a select committee, but that does not mean to say we agree with everything in it. In fact, we have some major reservations. The United Future member who is sitting there admitted that his fingerprints are all over the bill. He claimed credit for it, and then at the end of his speech he said there will have to be some significant amendments to it. I ask that member why we are debating a bill under urgency before Christmas, when he could have had 6 weeks to sort it out and we could have put it through the House\u2014hopefully, 100 percent correct\u2014very firmly and quickly in February. It is an absolute disgrace for a member to stand up and claim credit for legislation, then say that it needs some adjustment and will have to have major amendments, at the same time as we are debating it under urgency so that we can push it through before Christmas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI believe that every party in the House wants to address some of the concerns of the Resource Management Act. That is why we are a little bit mystified by the National Party and, certainly, by ACT. I listened very carefully to Mr Eckhoff. In 10 minutes, he told us everything that was wrong with the Resource Management Act as it is, and he made a very good job of it. I say to Mr Eckhoff that here is an opportunity to sort it out. But before he sat down he said he would oppose the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d34a4cdbff0a4c93bc50b0b79c60f771\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: The bill is a lemon!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df18fb4a3ff2460ba23b4a8c5cc3b4d1\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I know that the former Minister keeps close scrutiny on resource management problems. I say to him that this is an opportunity to address those concerns. He raised an interesting issue\u2014an issue that I could not believe occurred. People in Queenstown have to get a resource consent for hiring out their houses. Did I hear the member correctly?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238d0506a10ec4ec9979374a0a8a75406\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: And for less than 3 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d34c89455a2045cdb19c6ed1f304b266\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: That is even worse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc5429ca00cf4df9a5c51a2cc021a156\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: And David Parker supports it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8f92b1e32e647ac995a438124bae00b\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: That is outrageous. It is so outrageous that I found a clause in the bill that may or may not deal with it, and hopefully will. Clause 33 inserts new section 75, \u201CContents of district plans\u201D, which states: \u201C(1) A district plan must state\u2014(a) the policies for the district;\u201D. So the council will have to outline the fact that it charges people a fee to get a consent if they hire their houses out for less than 3 months. Then, as set out in subsection (2), it will have to supply \u201C(b) the objectives that the plan seeks to achieve;\u201D. That is quite simple. Queenstown obviously wants to get more money! That is the only reason. The council will have to state that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThen the council will have to supply \u201C(d) the principal reasons for adopting the policies and methods;\u201D. That is quite clear. They want to rip off their local constituents. Then the council will have to supply \u201C(e) the environmental results expected from the policies and the methods;\u201D. They will have a hard time justifying that. Then it will have to supply \u201C(f) the procedures for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the policies and methods;\u201D. The council will have to send the smoke-free inspectors down in their spare time to check whether the people who have hired the house are still there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ESubsection (3) states: \u201Ca district plan must give effect to\u2014(a) any national policy statement;\u201D. I say seriously to the House that if we cannot get a national policy statement that does not require people who hire their houses out for less than 3 months having to get a resource management understanding, then it is a disgrace. We are turning this country into a police State. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWe must get the Resource Management Act correct. The delays and hold-ups due to resource management problems cause all sorts of concerns, not only to investors, developers, landowners, and property owners but to the average Joe Blow. People want certainty. They also want fairness and simplicity, so that they can understand what it is all about and the procedures they have to go through. Further to that, they want transparency and speed. They want the issues handled fairly, speedily, transparently, and in a manner that is easily understood. I ask Mr Baldock whether this bill will do that. I doubt it. He is nodding his head; he thinks it will. I will give the member a little bit of credit\u2014the bill will go some way. But if he had taken a little longer and consulted a bit more widely in Parliament, he might have got it right. My colleague Jim Peters probably knows more about the Resource Management Act than anybody in Parliament. He will be on the select committee and will sort it out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI ask the honourable member why he did not spend a bit more time on the bill. There is an old saying: \u201CMore haste, less speed.\u201D If this bill had been presented to the House in a form that would deliver the whole thing, National members would have supported it, would they not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293d00e305e1e4e8091084bd68705aca0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It was promised in September.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1652686f0724155bf86ec97c515d1da\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: It was promised in September. [Interruption] We have it in December and members are all admitting that it is not correct. United Future members are admitting that it has to be significantly amended. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EPart 2, which has only three clauses, amends the Electricity Act. Basically, that will allow access for higher-powered structures on the roading corridor. I do not know whether that is desirable. I know the arguments for\u2014some say it will deliver power more cheaply and effectively. But there are many arguments against it. New Zealand First welcomes this bill going to the select committee so that we can hear the arguments for and against. I remind this Government that the electricity industry in this country needs some attention. The Government has made two attempts to address the issues, and it does not yet have it right. We should be aiming to guarantee security of supply. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWill the Government say whether its recent legislation will do that? I do not hear any wild shouts of confidence. We also need greater investment in electricity in this country. Will that little part in the bill achieve that? Will the current legislation achieve that? I doubt it. People want electricity prices that are fair, reasonable, and sustainable. We have volatile prices. Is that likely to change? No, it is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EAs I said, New Zealand First supports this bill in its entirety going to the select committee. By reading through the bill quickly, I can see that my colleague will be working day and night to give the select committee the sound advice it needs to amend it. I concede that there are some points of merit in it, but many clauses need to be addressed positively in the interests of all New Zealanders. [Interruption] The honourable member said something that I did not quite catch, but I tell him that he has had his day in the sun with this bill. If this is the best he can come up with, he has a C.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022886b730d867948afa527f8b0b8681f3a\u0022\u003EShane Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: A C-.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab149e2e34524c5ea6afbc5ee1cf91ae\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: A C-. It will rest heavily on the shoulders of New Zealand First\u2014principally my colleague Jim Peters\u2014to sort this out. If he does not sort this out, or is prohibited from doing so at the select committee, then New Zealand First will not support the progress of this bill. But we will support it going to the select committee so that people can come and have their say. Let us sincerely hope that between us we can make a better job than we have had thus far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7e2d95ed7684457bc6ccb8bdf47314d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7e2d95ed7684457bc6ccb8bdf47314d\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E Some recesses of people\u2019s minds should never be revealed publicly. We just heard the meanderings of the last speaker, Peter Brown\u2014which came from the recesses of his mind\u2014whereby he hoped for things and uttered things that he does not understand. The key is that in this bill he wants efficiency, effectiveness, and certainty. I remind him of the main objectives of the bill, which provide just those three things\u2014efficiency, effectiveness, and certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f56275eb194431db75bd25d9ffd1ced\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: How is that achieved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef7a0835cea24f5fa837966248e51f8f\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: That is achieved by enabling central government to better express the national interest, so that decision makers have clear guidance on how to take national interest matters into account. That is fundamental to the efficient operation of the Resource Management Act. How is it effective? It enables consent processes to be undertaken in a manner that is effective and efficient, and that provides certainty of process for applications. It is effective because it improves the effectiveness of planning documents to enable their timely development. It is certain because it provides certainty of consultation requirements for resource management matters. So when Peter Brown gets the Christmas fairy to read his last speech back to him, he will realise that deep down in his heart he supports this bill. New Zealand First members will flock after him and vote for it at its later readings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225d6483f181d44f2cb715bc22eda18f98\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00225aa373d7a0e6471687b25cadb5edbf86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225aa373d7a0e6471687b25cadb5edbf86\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 2 May 2005, that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House, and that the committee have the authority to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u0022592dc6760624443390f3759cddcde648\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022592dc6760624443390f3759cddcde648\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House now finds itself in some difficulty. I refer you to Standing Order 284(3), which makes very clear that the member in charge of the bill may include in a motion nominating the committee to consider the bill any special instruction in respect of that committee\u2019s consideration. Specifically, this Minister just referred to a report-back date of 2 May 2005, the presumption being that the select committee would otherwise have 6 months to report the bill back. However, Standing Order 284(3) further states that in respect of the committee\u2019s consideration of the bill, the mover has to have indicated in his first reading speech that that matter is to be proposed. Although I was not in the House at the time of the Minister\u2019s first reading speech, I am advised by my colleagues who were in the House that no such reference to a shortened report-back date was made by the member in charge of the bill at the point of the first reading. Therefore, the motion put by the Minister in my submission is out of order, which means that the report-back date will then revert to the 6-month period otherwise presumed under the Standing Orders, and I seek your ruling accordingly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ebb71d81ca749e5ac120f6d7ce1eaa1\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for that, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002239c0f6de25b1475c998d4470e441c9d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239c0f6de25b1475c998d4470e441c9d7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to confirm that I listened very carefully to the contribution by Mr David Benson-Pope, the new Minister, because I would have made a contribution in the debate had I known of the motion the Minister is now attempting to put to the House contrary to the Standing Orders, with the Minister not notifying the House. As my colleague Simon Power has correctly put to members, the motion from the Minister is out of order, and the select committee cannot include any instruction, because the Minister did not include in his first reading speech any indication that he would do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203d201d35a4d4db3a543bf419a0d1e2e\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. The issue is quite clear. Under Standing Order 282(1) the Minister must indicate in the first reading speech whether it is intended to impose a different reporting date or whether there are any other instructions. I am told that such instructions were not included in that speech, so to achieve that course it can only be done by the seeking of leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022a197257907d24fb29447e57d50605d12\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a197257907d24fb29447e57d50605d12\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to seek leave for that instruction to be given effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba774f1b50a947f185bf035730528037\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is denied. The only parts of the motion that can be accepted are those that relate to the referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the motion will carry the normal report-back time of 6 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00224d48076d7bcd4c3b8c3fb55e173f860d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d48076d7bcd4c3b8c3fb55e173f860d\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask your assistance in this matter with your knowledge of the Standing Orders, but I referred to the report-back time in my speech and I wonder whether I might be able to move the motion. Can you give me some clarification on that, Mr Speaker, because I clearly referred in my speech to the fact that there would be a shortened process. If it must be a Minister who moves the motion, I understand that, but I am seeking a clarification please. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022f998ae11a3dc41b296e674e738f3666f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f998ae11a3dc41b296e674e738f3666f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Standing Order 284 is very explicit. It states that it is \u201C\u2026 the member in charge \u2026\u201D of the bill. The member in charge of this bill, whose name is on the front of the bill, is Mr David Benson-Pope. I was concerned when I heard the contribution from Mr Larry Baldock indicating that there would be an earlier report-back time. I had listened very carefully to the Minister\u2019s speech and he had not given any indication, so that is what alerted me to the fact that the Government was attempting to break the Standing Orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f12d7e545d9049b08b74addd6a96dd52\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: It is clear, by the Standing Orders, that those instructions and all things relevant to that can be moved only by the Minister, so I thank Mr Baldock. The motion now is that the bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee and have the normal report-back date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e3fe4242b1c4a3da68ec48488e2bb67\u0022\u003E Prisoners\u0027 and Victims\u0027 Claims Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0f128759bcb4c11b26b8e9039f79746\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022a90e7df1ba1b43a0b6d82570505d6772\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a90e7df1ba1b43a0b6d82570505d6772\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Prisoners\u0027 and Victims\u0027 Claims Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee present its report on or before 4 April 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday of a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EMost people, including myself, have a deep sense that it is wrong that serious offenders can be awarded compensation for wrongful treatment without those offenders themselves being required to pay compensation to their victims for the serious wrongs inflicted upon them. The best way of preventing compensation payments to inmates, of course, is to ensure that breaches of State obligations that give rise to them do not occur. To help achieve that outcome, Ministry of Justice officials are currently leading a review of current prisoners\u2019 complaints mechanisms, including the Department of Corrections\u2019 internal complaints process, prison inspectors, and external complaints mechanisms such as the Ombudsmen, so that any breaches can be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThis bill sets out two major changes with regard to State compensation to inmates. Firstly, it provides that prisoners can be compensated only in exceptional cases and after exhausting all avenues of complaint. Secondly, if compensation is payable, the bill provides victims with the means to seek redress from the offender for the harm and suffering the offender caused them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThe bill requires that if a person in the corrections system brings a claim for a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act, or the Privacy Act, compensation will not be available as a remedy unless the person can show to the satisfaction of the court that he or she has made reasonable use of the available complaints mechanisms and has failed to achieve effective redress, and that no other remedy or combination of remedies would be effective. These new rules will apply to all court decisions made after the bill takes effect. That includes any cases that are pending at the time of enactment. Requiring prisoners to use available complaints mechanisms is intended to ensure that complaints are brought to official notice and dealt with as quickly as possible. That will reduce any opportunity for prisoners to tolerate a breach longer than is necessary in order to claim compensation through the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EIn the extraordinary situation where compensation is paid to a prisoner, this bill establishes a new mechanism whereby the prisoner\u2019s victims have the opportunity and get assistance to claim redress from any payment that the offender has received. The bill does that by establishing a trust account and a special victims\u2019 claims procedure. Any compensation paid by the Crown to an inmate, either in the form of a public law damages claim, or as the result of a claim in tort, will be paid instead to the Secretary for Justice. After deducting any legal aid charges and unpaid reparation, the secretary will place the money in a bank account, to be held in trust so that victims can claim against it. The Secretary for Justice will take reasonable steps to identify and notify victims of the offender of the fact that a sum of money is available to them. Victims will be sent an application form, and will have 6 months in which to file a claim in writing. To assist them financially, victims will be exempt from the usual financial eligibility rules for legal aid, up to a capped amount. They will also not have to pay normal filing and hearing fees. Victims, therefore, will not be disadvantaged in relation to offenders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThe procedures have been made as simple as possible, while still being consistent with natural justice requirements. Claims will be determined by a District Court judge sitting as a victims\u2019 special claims tribunal. They will usually be determined on the papers unless there are exceptional reasons justifying a hearing. Victims will not have to re-prove the details of offenders\u2019 crimes. The tribunal will be able to rely on the findings of fact in the criminal cases that led to the offenders\u2019 convictions. Victims will have to provide information only about the harm or loss they have suffered\u2014something they have already done, normally, through a victim\u2019s impact statement. When all the claims against the offender are determined, the tribunal may make orders for damages. The Secretary for Justice will then pay money out of the trust to the victims, according to the tribunal\u2019s order. Where there are multiple victims and there are insufficient funds to meet all victims\u2019 awards, the available money will be paid out on a proportional basis. This new process and trust arrangement will apply to any money awarded as part of a final judgment or settlement given after the bill takes effect, even if a case is already before the courts pending final determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThe third main feature of the bill is that it makes changes to the limitation rules that apply to victims\u2019 claims. Although victims have always had the right to take civil claims against offenders for the loss or harm they have suffered, they generally do not do so. One of the main reasons for this is that such claims are usually futile if the offender has no assets and is in prison. By the time the offender is released, the normal limitation period of 6 years may have expired and the victim may be disadvantaged. Clearly, this puts victims at a particular disadvantage in enforcing their rights. The bill will address this by providing that, for victims\u2019 claims against offenders, the 6-year limitation period will be suspended during all periods that the offender is in prison. Changes to the limitation rules will extend the period in which victims can pursue claims against prisoners, either before a victims\u2019 special claims tribunal, if relevant, or in the ordinary courts. The new limitation provisions in the bill will benefit all victims of offences, whether the offence occurred before or after the bill takes effect, and irrespective of whether the offender has sought compensation, and even if the victim\u2019s action would previously have been statute barred under the Limitation Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThere will be those who say that this bill does not go far enough, and that compensation should never be paid to prisoners. That is a position that is not sustainable under international law, and may remove from the State the incentive not to breach standards. No comparable country\u2014the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the United States, or any European country\u2014denies the right of compensation in those circumstances. This is a right acknowledged by the National Party through its entire period in Government. This flip-flop National Opposition might promise all sorts of things now, but it will never deliver on them, because when National was in power it never provided anything of this nature. Others will say that this bill goes too far. That also is incorrect. The bill takes a principled approach to compensation, consistent with New Zealand\u2019s domestic and international human rights obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EI believe that the review of the complaints procedures that is taking place now, and this bill, will quite properly restrict the circumstances that may give rise to compensation payments to inmates. Where payments have to be made, the bill maximises the prospect that victims will be the ultimate beneficiaries. That is as it should be and I make no apology for that. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2fdf64141094612b5d8733369f6a13d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2fdf64141094612b5d8733369f6a13d\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b910ff06232441fcb4be4d24c1112f15\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I started my speech I inadvertently said \u201Cbefore 4 April 2004\u201D. Of course, that should be \u201Cbefore 4 April 2005\u201D. I ask whether that can be corrected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfd2e03c34704dde9538c3d41a470e3a\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Was that by leave?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223353c9267a0c4989bcdf4be102e88181\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was not by leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ff43ecf44c147bd89a73ee9f913b4d0\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you had actually started to put the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022173e9604a88b4cf3a9c021e4936a4f21\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: In any case, I would have accepted that correction because it was a simple mistake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db42f8f204b24b2eaa78f29c54232e93\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unless I am mistaken\u2014and I stand to be corrected\u2014the Minister had resumed his seat at the point that the chief Government whip arrived at his desk to advise him that a second mistake in a row had been made in respect of referral dates. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that at that point\u2014the point that the Minister resumed his seat\u2014his speech had terminated. The fact that the Minister had resumed his seat and his speech had terminated meant that the date he mentioned in his opening remarks on the first reading stood. Now, by leave he can seek to amend that, but the Minister had resumed his seat and his speech had terminated. I seek your ruling on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4fc1f4c0a0a4983980e1979e5978b4c\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: The point is that it was a simple mistake, and I am sure everyone would appreciate that. The date could not possibly be 2004. But there is a bigger issue, and it is this. Once a Minister on his feet mentions a date and sits down, his speech is over. In fact, Tony Ryall had been called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224622ffeb6bb043daa2c45ff133fa7dc4\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: No, he had not been called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b6db82fe5e44e32b91f9ad3b6e75a88\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Assistant Speaker had begun to put the question. At what point is it allowable for a Minister to come back later and say: \u201CPoint of order, I got the date wrong.\u201D? You could imagine, Mr Assistant Speaker, that we could have had half a debate\u2014in fact we could have had an entire debate. The idea that a Minister can mention a date in his speech, then correct it some time after his speech, seems to me to be getting into very treacherous waters. I would like you to consider just where the cut-off point is for correcting a mistake like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e6277401e60403ca94a7d69d40959d4\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. I do not have any difficulty with it. I heard the Minister say \u201C2004\u201D in the early part of his speech. I took it as a mistake. The intention was clear, and in any case his speech was not finished. He still had time to go\u2014albeit he had sat down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fafb18cc484412eb8b312634d1c2d75\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: But you had started to put the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed34bd2db84141869780e4bf5ee4ee62\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I had. But I accept the correction. If it is not accepted now, it would be accepted as a matter of course when the Minister next speaks after the debate has finished. It would be accepted as a matter of course. The intention is clear. We are not playing games here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022998531b85cf24e22a20f29bde80eecef\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not test your ruling, as that would be very unwise, but could I just ask you to rule on this matter. If a member resumes his seat, regardless of whether time is left to run, has that speech terminated or has it not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204b0b0bd46164d6e9e8d65a05a2badf2\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I am told that is a hypothetical situation. I think we have taken it as far as we can. It is a hypothetical situation, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245d23bff200e471c8f0e6ca0a79944b1\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Can we get a ruling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe8cf3e0f10542ceb827588db7f74776\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I rule on actual cases only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022485be6e7b749414783174afc22363b3c\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I said, I accept your ruling in respect of the circumstances surrounding Mr Goff\u2019s error, and the House is in your hands to allow that correction. But, actually, we are not dealing with a hypothetical situation. We are dealing with a very real situation where the Minister resumed his seat after his speech\u2014and, again, I am not contesting the date issue; you have ruled on that. This is not a hypothetical situation. When the Hon Phil Goff resumed his seat, was his speech terminated or was it not? That is the ruling I am asking for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac10473858c74558abe7dbeb76a7ab74\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I will need to come back to the House on that point. I am quite prepared to do that because there is a grey area there. But at that moment Mr Goff still had the floor. That is my view at the moment, because no other member had been called. But we will clear that up in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u002274a1105703e84734a472dd04e1af412e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274a1105703e84734a472dd04e1af412e\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E That was a speech made by the Minister of Justice\u2014maybe for just a few days more\u2014who was done like a dinner on Morning Report this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. Dr Brash exposed Phil Goff for what he actually is\u2014a Minister who is prepared to mislead the public about the effect of this bill so much that a reporter exposed him. It is a shame that the Minister refuses to listen to what I am saying. That Minister was done like a dinner on Morning Report by Don Brash. He was exposed as the worst sort of politician we have in this Parliament. He is one who is prepared to go on radio and mislead the public. Sean Plunket, who is no friend of the National Party, exposed Mr Goff for misleading every New Zealander who was listening to that programme. Mr Goff was exposed as trying to sound credible in promoting the indefensible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EMorning Report showed one of two things this morning: either Minister Goff does not know what is in his bill, or he is prepared to mislead the public because he is ashamed of what is in his bill. I will say why the Minister made the mistake of saying April 2004 when talking about the referral motion: because, in fact, it was in April 2004 that he found out compensation would be paid to prisoners. In April this year Mr Goff found out that compensation would be paid to prisoners. Do members know what Mr \u201CGet Tough\u201D Goff did? He did nothing. What he did was to continue with his bill that would have legalised some sexual activity between 12-year-olds. Mr Goff carried on with his bill to decriminalise some sexual activity between 12-year-olds, when he could have been blocking, stopping, and wiping payments to criminals. He thought that was more important than stopping payments to criminals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThis Government has got itself completely tied up in knots over prisoners\u2019 rights. The answer to this is very simple and very clear, and it has been enunciated by Dr Don Brash, the Leader of the Opposition. He said \u201CNo money.\u201D Dr Brash said this morning, as he was wiping the floor with Phil Goff: \u201CThis is a Government that says there is no money for tax cuts, but there is money for prisoner compensation.\u201D That is what this Government says. There is no money for hard-working New Zealanders as a reward for effort, but there is money for prisoner compensation. This legislation has a gaping hole\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022710518edce31440e8996163af8199463\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s all the fuss about a date, when you can get up and tell porkies like that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022425f62d06fcf43e1bd75899a53e1e4a4\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: I want to tell Jill Pettis, because I am sure Chester Burrows will tell the people in Wanganui, that under this legislation offenders will still get the money. Every single one of those offenders who got a payment under the last set of payments by the Government will still get the cash. Let me give an example of where that happens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EIf no victims are identified, the money goes to the offender. I want to talk about two men from Remuera, in Auckland. They lived in an exclusive part of Auckland and their children went to private schools, but when they lost money they resorted to trafficking pure methamphetamine, or P\u2014amongst the most destructive and addictive drugs in this country. Using their status as businessmen as a disguise, they smuggled up to $14 million worth of methamphetamine in and out of the country for an international drug syndicate. Who were their victims? No victim was promoted during the court case. These vile characters were sentenced to jail for what the judge said was some of the most serious offending known to New Zealand, and there were no identifiable victims. Well, of course there were victims. The people who used the evil that these guys peddled on the streets of New Zealand were the victims, but not one victim was identified in the court case. If those two men, the Remuera drug dealers, do get a compensation payment, they can keep every dollar. Any drug dealer who gets a compensation payment will keep every dollar, because there is no identifiable victim. What does Mr Goff say to that? Nothing, because if there are no identifiable victims, the crim gets to keep the money. If the judge does not approve the victim\u2019s claim, the money goes to the offender.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EUnder this plan, judges will be put in the unenviable position of having to decide how the compensation should be split amongst the number of victims. They will be forced to put a value on pain and suffering, and make a decision between victims. This bill pits victims against each other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EHere is the third outrage of why the offender still gets the cash. If there is anything left over, it is handed to the offender. This bill does not block, stop, wipe payments to prisoners. It allows them to keep the cash. Dr Brash on Morning Report this morning, when he humiliated the Minister of Justice\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac2211f04ec948beb5ec269076f0e12c\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: It wasn\u2019t hard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220d02e071bce400a90810037b3d6ffbf\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: As Rodney Hide says, it was not very hard. I presume that Mr Goff was busy worrying about the demise of some of his proposals to decriminalise the sexual activity of 12-year-olds, but what Mr Goff, one of the worst sorts of liberals we can see in this Government, would not admit is that this measure will re-traumatise victims. The victims will have to prove that they deserve compensation. The victim\u2019s application is to be shown to the offender. The rape victim will talk about the pain and suffering she has suffered over the years, and write it down, and Phil Goff will show it to the rapist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e6dc7ce1c0745e2a8ed964d637bd6bc\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: What did you do about it when you were in Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244c969b03de84786af88819693ea1514\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: I will say to Mr Samuels what I will do about it. I will stop payments to rapists and to murderers. I will stop these compensation payments, under a Government led by Dr Don Brash. Let us face it: the rapists are to read the comments of the victims. The victims will get legal aid, but so will the offenders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI want to debunk one of the big myths from Phil Goff. He says that international obligations mean we have to pay this compensation. We have looked at the international obligations. There is not one international obligation that says we have to pay criminals compensation, and in fact there is a reservation to the international covenant that says that payments can be made only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. It is clear: payments can be made only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. That is why Margaret Wilson paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mangaroa prisoners. Mr Goff should confront the fact that the only reason these payments are subject to the human rights legislation is the Baigent case. When the police shockingly raided the home of the late Mrs Baigent, whom I knew, and in that raid on her property took away her dignity, the court decided that she should get compensation. That is where this started. It was a court decision relating to the late Mrs Baigent. There is no international obligation whatsoever, and the Government has been told that. The Minister will not admit it, but the Government has been told that. I am sure that when the Official Information Act requests for all of the advice to the Government come out, people will see clearly that there is no international obligation that we pay criminals compensation. In fact, the international obligations say it is totally at the discretion of the Attorney-General\u2014in this case, the high priestess of PC, Margaret Wilson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThis bill is an appalling fraud being committed on ordinary New Zealanders by Phil Goff. The crims can still get the cash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u002200a9918426614bdc81c12af0a176273a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200a9918426614bdc81c12af0a176273a\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E That was a surprising address from someone who clearly did not listen to Morning Report very accurately this morning. He has not read the law on international obligations very carefully, nor does he understand the law on compensation. This bill, of course, is a patch-up effort for the failures of the previous National Government during the 1990s, which developed a culture of abuse within prisons, resulting in the mess that this Government now has to handle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESo this bill is the first step towards bringing something correct to the crazy world that existed under the previous administration, as represented by the previous pathetic speaker, who seems to be careless with facts as well as with logic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe main way to stop money from being paid out to prisoners is to stop prison officers from ill treating them\u2014it is as simple as that. And, of course, that is what the Government is doing, under its enlightened Minister of Corrections, the Hon Paul Swain. We will not see the need for this legislation, when it becomes law, to become active as a result of the actions of this Government in relation to prisoners. But we are still cleaning up the mess left by the previous administration. During the early and mid-1990s\u2014in 1992 at Mangaroa, and then down in Christchurch\u2014when the previous speaker, the Hon Tony Ryall, was a member of Cabinet, prison officers felt welcome to inflict cruelty and unfair treatment on prisoners. That will no longer happen, so this bill is really a patch-up for the problems caused by the last administration. The previous speaker ridiculed the bill, but he will not sleep well at night, knowing that he is the author of the conflict in prisons and the author who created compensation for prisoners who do not deserve such compensation. We know that this bill will have very little practical effect, because of the sterling work done to sort out our prison service so that we stop mistreating prisoners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4df2046d36e42e49efc52abaac4a026\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4df2046d36e42e49efc52abaac4a026\u0022\u003ERON MARK (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E What an extraordinary speech that was. The member said that this Government was sorting out the mess inside our prison service! We do not even have a prison service; it is a Department of Corrections. Some of us would be very appreciative if we could get back to having a prison service, not a business unit. Some of us would like to see the return of a culture of service to the public, not the promotion of Labour\u2019s much-vaunted reforms from the 1980s that were parroted out of the good member\u2019s mouth there, when he referred to the prison service. I make it very clear right from the outset that New Zealand First will support the bill\u2019s referral to a select committee, but we recognise that some work has to be done on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EWe need to peel back the pages and see what is not covered in the legislation. New Zealand First has long expressed its disgust at the fact that inmates have been paid compensation under this Government. This Government said that it would end the culture of excess, that it would stop the golden handshakes, and that it would stop unseemly, disgusting payouts to people. We all remember the payouts to people and the campaigns that the Government ran against Christine Rankin and a number of other public servants. However, what was the first thing that Margaret Wilson, as Attorney-General, did in respect of big payouts? She approved them. She paid out $230,000 to two inmates within a year or so of having her job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EWhat was another payout that this Government approved? There was the young man in the South Island who was not released after he had completed his full sentence\u2014he was released belatedly, after having qualified for parole. He was held in jail for 1 week extra. The Government allowed that little piece of scum to get $42,000. And here is the real rip: that boy had been put in jail as a result of beating up a barber, breaking his teeth, and being told to pay $500 in reparation. Did the Government move then when he put his digit in the air, and said there was no way that he would pay the reparation? Did the Government move when the barber was on television, explaining how he had been viciously assaulted, had had his teeth broken, and had still not been paid reparation? No, it sat on its chuff and did nothing. So the Government did not pay out once or twice; it paid out four times. Then we had a ruling about five inmates who had been illegally detained. Once again the lights were flashing to signal that another payout was coming, but the Government did not do a thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003ENow we are sitting here going gasp, gasp, horror, horror, because there are more inmates who are likely to get $130,000. Why? It is because Labour is lazy. It is so focused on genetically re-engineering the New Zealand populace, on its social law reforms, and on representing the rights of inmates that it forgot all about the rights of victims. Now the Government expects the country to applaud it for championing the issue in the House today. Well, this measure is too little, too late. The Government has been in office far too long, and New Zealand First aims to correct that at the next election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EBut the party that sits to my right is not immune from criticism, either. The National Party needs to accept that it has also played a part in this situation. The legislation that has allowed those things to happen has been around for about 9 years, and nothing was ever done. But, more important, the formation of an emergency response unit in the Christchurch prisons happened under National. That unit set about acting illegally and improperly, and breaching inmates\u2019 rights, which put the country in jeopardy of such lawsuits, and was anything done about that? No. Now we go flip-flop back to the Government side of the House, because who is to blame for letting that debacle go on for so long? Inmates have been mistreated and abused, which has raised the potential for lawsuits to be lodged. That happened as a result of a National Party initiative with regard to an emergency response unit, but what did Labour do about it when it came into power and was told there was a mess down in Christchurch? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EThe first Minister to say he would not do anything about that situation was Mark Gosche. He was paid over $100,000 a year to do nothing. Did he redress the situation? No. Did he react to my call for an investigation? No, he did nothing. I am sorry, but I failed to mention that before Mark Gosche we had Mr Matt Robson, the great champion of civil liberties and human rights, as Minister. He is the man who is out there campaigning for Zaoui. He will do anything for some terrorist foreigner who has sucked up $2 million of taxpayers\u2019 money, but he would not do a jolly thing about his own people being abused in his own prisons. Matt Robson is the great champion of no one for nothing, unless it suits him personally. He did nothing about the emergency response unit, the excesses, the allegations, and the abuses. He did nothing about the prison officers who raised their concerns. One of them even went to the Employment Court and had everything he had said vindicated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EMark Gosche, who did nothing, came after Matt Robson, and then came the matriarch herself, Margaret Wilson, when she became the Minister of Corrections. What did she do? Nothing! Then came Paul Swain. Hallelujah! I begged him, asked him, and pleaded with him to deal with the issue. The select committee discussed having a select committee inquiry into the abuses and excesses in the Christchurch prisons. It took Paul Swain years, but finally he relented, and right now the Ailsa Duffy inquiry is being held into the excesses and the abuse of inmates by the emergency response unit in Christchurch. We get claims and lawsuits such as those, and disgusting payouts such as those, only when we break our own rules. When four Ministers in this Government ignored such breaches of the law and did nothing, we should not ask ourselves how those things could have happened. Rather, we should ask ourselves how we can have people who are so incompetent sitting on the Government bench and drawing ministerial salaries, using ministerial credit cards, living the life of Riley, and supposedly representing New Zealand. How can we allow that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EThe problem is that we have had a succession of absolutely incompetent Ministers of Correction. We now have the Minister of Justice coming in over the top, with a bill to try to clean up the mess. There are three areas of blame. The National Party is one. The Labour Party is hugely to blame\u2014all the more so because it said that it would fix all the problems. It had 9 years to plan for that, and it has been in Government for 5 years. The warning lights were flashing and people were telling Government members that there was a mess inside the Department of Corrections, but four successive Ministers chose to ignore that. Then we had an Attorney-General who handed out money like an eight-armed octopus gone mad to inmates here, there, and everywhere. And now we have the cleaner coming in, and trying to clean the mess up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EWell, New Zealand First is here to help. We want to make this law workable. We do not like the situation whereby inmates are being paid out money. We do not like inmates getting money that Agent Orange veterans cannot get. The Government announced yesterday that it will not pay compensation to the Vietnam veterans, yet it hands out money willy-nilly to inmates who get a bit of a hard time. New Zealand First is here to help to clean the whole mess up. We aim to do more than just work on this bill. Come 2005, we aim to clean up the Government benches well and truly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u0022aea5317f04a34c3cb9ba7361a7405aa9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aea5317f04a34c3cb9ba7361a7405aa9\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens do not support this bill going to the select committee. We suggest that the Government go back, identify the problem clearly, and rethink how best to remedy it. We suggest that the Government go back to the conceptual stage and take the time to work through the issues a bit more carefully, because this is hasty legislation. It has been drafted in response to a specific situation, and to claims that are before the courts and in the wings. We do not believe that that is a good basis for hastily enacting legislation that has such significant and enduring effects. Of course, there is an issue. Inmates are being granted significant damages by the courts for suffering abuse\u2014tantamount to torture, at times\u2014at the hands of the Department of Corrections. While I agreed with some of the things that Mr Mark said, I do not think we can compare that compensation with a golden handshake. I do not think it is in quite the same league as that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe problem is that the victims of the inmates who receive such compensation\u2014sometimes victims of terrible, terrible crimes\u2014may be unable to sue those prisoners for damages, because the statute of limitations does not allow them to. That is clearly unfair. It is abhorrent to most New Zealanders, and I do not believe that we can allow it to stand. Having said that, there is a very simple way to fix the problem. It is to extend the statute of limitations. This bill does that in clause 60, and that is a good thing. Clause 60(1) states: \u201CThe limitation periods to which this subpart applies cease to run while the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal institution or a prison.\u201D That is a very sensible amendment, and the Greens support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EOut of a concern for victims, we would also look at supporting ways to make it easier for victims to sue offenders for damages. For example, we support automatic eligibility for legal aid for such victims, which is what Part 3 of this bill provides for. We support removing court filing fees, as this bill does in clause 27. So this bill does do some of those things, and we support those parts of it. However, the bill goes significantly further than that. It goes much further than simply fixing some bizarre anomalies in the law. In fact, far from focusing on the rights of victims, we believe it puts up a smokescreen. It makes a number of changes that are more in the nature of protecting the Crown from liability for its own actions with regard to prisoners than they are about protecting victims\u2019 rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ELet us look at what the bill does. The Minister has run through this stuff. First, it restricts the granting of an award of public law damages to prisoners and people \u201Cunder control or supervision\u201D. Let us note the phrase \u201Cunder control or supervision\u201D. Despite the Minister\u2019s assertions, that is not just about serious violent offenders who are in prison for the most heinous offences. That may well be so in some of the cases that are before the courts now, but this wording means that people who are doing community service for very minor offences will have their right to sue the department for significant breaches of basic human rights restricted. In any case, the law is supposed to be blind to the status of individuals. It is supposed to treat all people equally, regardless of our views of them. This bill is a significant infringement of that principle. It forces people to rely on the official complaints procedure. That weakens the most effective protection against abuse in the prison and correctional system, which is the ability to seek damages. Russell Fairbrother mentioned that. He said that the best way to stop compensation from being paid out was to stop the abuse. I absolutely agree with that, but what we are doing is removing that sanction from the department. That is a very dangerous thing, particularly when we bear in mind that the Government has strenuously resisted the establishment of a complaints body that is independent of the Department of Corrections. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe second thing that the bill does is to provide that any money awarded, even under that highly restrictive scheme, will be frozen for 6 months while victims of the inmate are informed of their chance to sue. Interestingly, given that the bill claims to be about victims\u2019 rights, any moneys that are paid out from those frozen funds will, under clause 17, be used firstly to pay off any legal aid bills\u2014that is an interesting thing\u2014and secondly to pay for reparations. Only thirdly will compensation claimants be able to get hold of any of that money. Again, that brings into question the actual intent of the bill. Just as an aside, the Greens would have supported legislation that stated that any compensation money must first go towards paying off any fines, outstanding reparation orders, or things like that. But it is also interesting that fines are absent from the list. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe third thing that the bill does is to set in place a special procedure under which victims will be able to sue offenders: the victims\u2019 special claims tribunals. We are seeing here the establishment of a new kind of tribunal. Again, it is being done in haste. The implications of that have not been well-thought-through. Normally, we would expect to see significant policy work done before such a thing was introduced. We would expect to see a discussion document from the Law Commission, papers go out for public submissions, submissions come back, and then the development of a bill. But because this is a hasty bill that is designed to protect the Crown from liability, we are seeing a significant new procedure being set up, the implications of which simply have not been thought through. Hearings will be on the papers except under exceptional circumstances, when the plaintiff can give oral evidence. Interestingly, the defendant apparently will not be able to give oral evidence; only the plaintiff will, which seems unfair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe other interesting aspect is that action can be taken \u201Cby or on behalf of\u201D a victim. The Minister has suggested that many victims may not want to sue offenders for damages, and so are unlikely to take action. So we may see a number of cases coming through on behalf of victims. It may well be that the victim does not want payment from the offender; he or she may see that as distasteful. The Minister has suggested that many payments may well go to organisations apart from the plaintiff. That opens up, I think, the very worrying possibility of some unscrupulous organisations\u2014and there are many good organisations working in this area\u2014that claim to represent victims manipulating victims of crime who have no wish to initiate proceedings into allowing those organisations to take proceedings on their behalf, in return for keeping the proceeds. Given that the bill puts in place a special procedure to sue that is all about expediting the award of damages to the victim, I think that procedure is seriously open to misuse by people whom the bill is not at all intended to benefit. I think the Minister needs to take a very careful look at that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThis bill has already caused significant disquiet in the legal fraternity and among organisations with an interest in, or a commitment to, civil rights. Once again, the Green Party is the only voice in Parliament that is prepared to defend some basic civil rights. While some people and some members of this House view civil and human rights as a kind of fluffy, PC thing, or as an expendable luxury, basic human and civil rights are, in fact, what distinguishes and separates a just nation from a tyranny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u002234cb99f197e84b769b66e9f8ff8f4617\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234cb99f197e84b769b66e9f8ff8f4617\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise for the ACT party to address the Minister of Justice\u2019s hasty Prisoners\u2019 and Victims\u2019 Claims Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8633bd0656e485db194a2e53eeb9cb7\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Hasty?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022670d33aecf8a445f950f399e57e2ff1b\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: This bill looks as if he still has not had a chance to read it. I would not be surprised if he has not read it properly. Of course, the Government has only one halfway-competent Minister in the field. The Government is riddled with Ministers, Associate Ministers, and others that it needs to take out of its caucus and stick into Cabinet so that it can halfway trust them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EHere is a bill that falls squarely within the scope of the authority of the Minister of Corrections. It could have been dealt with by the Minister who has negotiated some of these dreadful payouts, the Hon Margaret Wilson, but she is, of course, getting the kick upstairs and obviously could not have been trusted to sort out this little mess. The Hon Paul Swain is in the House and is, I hope, preparing to take a call and speak on this bill, because this is, again, something that was absolutely predictable when his Corrections Bill went through earlier this year. That was a bill that simply opens the Government up to more claims like this. Chapman Tripp, my old law firm, took the precaution of putting in writing its warnings to the select committee on the likelihood of increased liability of the Crown under the new Corrections Act. These are liabilities that are utterly immoral. These are liabilities that the courts impose because they want to get into the business of straightening out the Department of Corrections. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EAs Ron Mark said earlier, there are reasons why prisoners have grievances against the prison authorities. In a civilised country it is important that those grievances be addressed. Being healthy and safe are minimum requirements for prisoners\u2014safe from each other, safe from abusive behaviour by officers, and safe from themselves if the misery that they are dealing with is too great. But that does not mean that they should be getting paid great sums of money because their rights have been abused. It means that the visiting justices should be doing their jobs. Instead, Mr Swain passed a bill earlier this year that turned the visiting justices\u2014who should be blowing the whistle on this kind of thing, who should have independent clout, who should have the mana of their judicial office to draw attention to abuses in prisons\u2014into prison toadies. A visiting justice is any lawyer of 7 years\u2019 standing whom the department wants to retain and make into a formal part of its internal system. A visiting justice these days is hitchhiking on the honourable term \u201Cjustice\u201D with no claim to it. They are not justices; they are simply another part of the machine that is operated by the Department of Corrections. The Minister knows that that system will not provide the independent overview that will mean we do not get the kind of outrage that has led some of the prisoners to file their claims. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI will get back to what Mr Goff\u2019s bill does. I measure that against the bill I drafted for him in a week in the middle of September, when it became quite plain that, despite his bluster and his statements that he would fix this problem, he was really just hoping it would die down and the media would forget it. It does not do the most important thing, which is eliminate the ability of judges to invent grievances and then invent remedies to deal with them. The 1994 Baigent decision involved a piece of judicial lawmaking that this Parliament had expressly considered and decided not to adopt. The courts gave themselves the right to give monetary awards for breaches of what they determined to be human rights law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIn the circumstances that we face, vicious criminals are making these claims and getting awards that work out at hundreds of dollars a day\u2014amounts they could probably never earn anywhere\u2014when they have suffered nothing except irritation and perhaps humiliation and a sense of grievance. The fact that their compensation sticks in the craw of victims is absolutely obvious. This bill does nothing to fix that because it does not give the victims an equivalent right. There is nothing in this bill that conveys the outrage and sense of loss that a victim feels when justice is not done, or the sense that most people in this country have that the price is not paid for a crime, or that it could lead to an outrage every bit as intense as the kind of offence that, in the Taunoa case, a judge decided should be rewarded with compensation for a prisoner. These prisoners\u2014who may be feeling a sense of grievance because they have not had fresh towels, or because they have been forced to clean out their own cells\u2014are claiming for breaches of standards that are not extended to law-abiding, innocent citizens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhat Mr Goff\u2019s bill should have done, but of course does not do, is state quite simply that monetary compensation should be paid only when there is something to compensate. When someone has lost something, or when there is damage, then that damage should be remedied. But in most cases what these prisoners have lost is respect for their minimum rights to be safe from abuse, and kept healthy. That does not involve a loss of money, and there is no reason why this bill should not have included a provision that requires a judge not to invent a redress that is really an ability to attack the Crown. Instead, it should have said that compensation or damages should be payable where damage has been suffered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThe second thing that this bill should have done and does not do is stiffen the prison discipline provisions. I have already mentioned the failure to maintain the status of visiting justices. We do not want our prisons to get the sort of reputation that Turkish prisons had\u2014Midnight Express sort of prisons. We do not want to be embarrassed in this country about the state of our prisons, even though we do want prisons to punish offenders. What should be happening here is that when there is a genuine claim upheld by the court, the court would really be doing justice if it had the authority to ensure that those who are responsible for it were brought to justice. There is nothing in this bill that ensures that. This bill should make it quite plain that when victims claim, they will be able to claim for the same kind of hurt and grievance that has given the offender the entitlement. We can know now that most of these sums will stay intact for the prisoners, because the accident compensation scheme blocks the claims of people who have been physically injured by criminals. The accident compensation scheme does not block claims for mental injury. So we will put victims, who are really claiming because they are outraged, through the hoops of having to try to establish that they have a continuing injury. That is humiliating for them, it is not healthy, and it does not do what this bill should be setting out to do, which is to even the scales of justice. It should be a very simple matter to describe a grievance here that is compensation for the offence of seeing a prisoner getting a sum that the victim could not get in the same circumstances, unless they were in prison. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThis bill does not do what my bill did, which was to authorise and instruct someone to take the proceedings for the victims. The so-called tribunals are simply District Court judges who have been given another label. They are already overworked and do not have the time. There is nothing in this bill that says they will get the priority they deserve. Lastly, it does not do anything about the money that has already been paid out. Although we do not approve retrospective law, there should have been an ability to simply save that money intact at least until it was determined, under existing law, whether the victims of the offenders who have already been compensated should be able to access some of that money in civil actions. This bill, as I read it, does nothing to deal with the offence that must be felt by victims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022 data-id=\u002278385fe63d6749f6a9db1b694280f7e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278385fe63d6749f6a9db1b694280f7e4\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E This bill has given us a great deal of difficulty for a number of reasons, because from a purely gut, instinctual point of view, my attitude is that international obligations be damned. This is about justice in our own country. No criminal, for whatever reason, deserves one cent of compensation for being in prison for choosing to commit a crime. Sadly, whichever way we look at it, we see that the Prisoners\u2019 and Victims\u2019 Claims Bill is a compromise\u2014nevertheless, it is one that we have no choice but to accept at this time. Hopefully, members will be able to improve upon it during the select committee process. I say it is a compromise that we have no choice but to accept, for a number of reasons, but chiefly because the idea of expecting victims to have to fight to take the compensation given to inmates is an absolute affront to any form of justice, at all. If anything, it is another kick in the teeth for victims by our criminal justice system, which certainly needs a monumental overhaul. Criminals have won awards for things like hurt feelings. It is pathetic! In August 2004 the High Court saw fit to award $130,000 to five inmates for alleged mistreatment under the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but that was only the beginning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003ELet us consider one of those five, Christopher Taunoa. That man was in prison because he slit the throat of someone so badly that it exposed the spine. He put at risk not only the guards in the prison but also the other inmates. He was put into segregation for 700 days, and for that he was awarded a sum of money, because it breached his so-called rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cbe35866aa14bf5a8daa9b5c11c373b\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: $55,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274567e31417f44fca8edc796924b320e\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER\u003C/span\u003E: He was awarded $55,000. Sadly, there is no win here, because had he been put back into the general prison population, I have no doubt that he would have infringed the human rights of the other inmates and the guards. What is the Department of Corrections supposed to do with people like him? He must be in segregation for everybody else\u2019s good, and damn his rights, because he has chosen to abrogate the rights of others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EI find it absolutely horrifying that\u2014as stated in answers to my written questions\u2014in the last year there have been 41 claims made for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Crimes of Torture Act, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, amounting to $963,000. There have been 26 claims for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and negligence, amounting to $1,569,000. There were three claims for assault and breach of duty of care, four for unlawful detention, one for loss of opportunity, and one for breach of privacy\u2014that one amounted to $10,000. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EThere is clearly a problem within the corrections system that needs to be addressed, but compensating inmates is not the way to do it. The total external legal costs incurred by the Department of Corrections for the five inmates was $616,938.20 as at June 2004. The total amount of legal aid paid in relation to those proceedings was $357,961.96 as at September 2004. The Government is appealing the claims, which will escalate the cost to taxpayers further, but regardless of that course of action, for the $130,000 that was given in compensation, $1,104,900 has already been spent. That works out at an average of $220,980 per criminal. The inmates\u2019 lawyer, Tony Ellis, has filed a claim on behalf of 18 other criminals, and has sought permission to represent 175 more. Assuming similar costs and outcomes, that means it will cost at least another $3,977,640 for the first 18 criminals, and a whopping $38 million \u2013 plus for the other 175. The taxpayer has to pay for compensation, legal proceedings, and legal aid for criminals who chose to commit crimes, and that is an affront to anybody in our country who loves justice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EIf we add it all up, we find that the taxpayer could be stung for up to $44 million, and that is without looking at possible appeals. The fact is that law-abiding taxpayers are facing a potential bill that is outrageous in the extreme in settling compensation claims from criminals alleging mistreatment in jail. Complaints from inmates have been escalating at an alarming rate\u2014from 96 in the year 1998-99 to 147 in 2001-02, 204 in 2002-03, and 226 in 2003-04. Successful claims for compensation will only incentivise those criminals and, worse, their lawyers\u2014who sometimes are indistinguishable from the criminals themselves, in my opinion\u2014at the expense of our notions of justice. The very idea that criminals are getting their taxpayer-funded day in court to claim taxpayer-funded compensation because they pose a genuine threat to the safety of guards and other inmates can be seen only as a slap in the face for all victims, and it is happening because the Government is putting international treaties ahead of the interests of justice in our own country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EThe Greens are resolutely opposed to this bill. I cannot help but reach the conclusion that those members do not find it repugnant that criminals could be rewarded, but their position gives the rest of us who do care about the interests of victims an opportunity. I urge all other parties\u2014National, ACT, and New Zealand First\u2014to work together with United Future to make this bill achieve what it needs to achieve, because Labour will not get it through without one of our parties. We can make it better. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EI turn to the content of the bill. Some of these provisions are quite positive things that we ought to retain. Any compensation that might be awarded will be placed in a trust until a victim decides whether to make a claim. Legal aid charges and unpaid reparation will be deducted. A sensible protection has been included so that prisoners on remand who prove a breach of their rights and who are not convicted will not have their funds subject to the trust. The accessibility of prisoner funds will be extended to include offender income other than compensation, such as accumulated savings, bequests, and so on. Those provisions will also apply to so-called victimless crimes, whereby victims from previous offending are identifiable and may also have the capacity to take compensation from offenders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EI am also particularly pleased that the Minister of Justice has picked up three points that I have been strongly pushing and advocating for. They include a rigorous complaints process that decreases the possibility of compensation. As I said earlier, I would rather not have that possibility come up, at all. A victim will have access to legal aid to claim the prisoners\u2019 compensation without regard to the victim\u2019s financial circumstances, and I think that is important. As most victims do not actually want the money\u2014because they think, quite rightly, that it is blood money\u2014are scared to sue sometimes because of an offender\u2019s gang connections, or do not want an ongoing legal connection to the offender, which is also understandable, an organisation such as, for example, the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be able to sue for the money on their behalf. I think it is absolutely right and proper that it be able to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003EAbove all else, we must understand that compensation\u2014a reward\u2014should never be given to anyone who chooses to commit a crime and finds himself or herself behind bars. Where is the compensation for victims for their loss of human rights at the very crux of the crime that was inflicted upon them? Yet offenders demand those rights for themselves. It is an ironic and absurd situation when those who most despise the law then use it to assert their so-called rights. Rather than criminals pursuing rewards that eluded them in the pursuit of their unsuccessful crimes, they are appealing to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is a pity that we do not have a \u201CBill of Responsibilities\u201D under which we could make the criminals pay, instead of their victims and other taxpayers. United Future will be supporting the first reading of this bill and, with other parties, we hope to improve it immensely for the benefit of victims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u00221f2ec74813854c39bbf4fab08779a62d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f2ec74813854c39bbf4fab08779a62d\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I support the first reading of the Prisoners\u2019 and Victims\u2019 Claims Bill, because, in the first place, it ensures that prisoners can be compensated in only exceptional cases, and after exhausting all avenues of complaint; and, the second part of the double, it provides new opportunities and assistance for victims to pursue compensation from those who have offended against them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed2aaaf3547e447fa59e6e882dfa4927\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed2aaaf3547e447fa59e6e882dfa4927\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I certainly would not regard that last speech as exhaustive or thorough. But I must say that I did appreciate Mr Alexander\u2019s speech. He has put a lot of thought into the material and weighed the balance, and United Future will vote for the bill. He feels\u2014and I suppose in some respect, so does National\u2014that we do not have a great deal of choice, because there is the opportunity for the select committee to repair the damage of this bill. National\u2019s position is clear: there should be no monetary compensation for prisoners, under any circumstances. That is not to say there should be no remedies, but we are clear on this: there should be no money for prisoners under any circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThat is not the appropriate remedy, because that is not the loss they have suffered. In fact, it leads to bizarre and perverse results. It can result in the absurd proposition that victims might want the prisoner to get money, because that then gives them an avenue to get it themselves. Why on earth would we put victims through such a ludicrous lottery? The Victims\u2019 Rights Act was dealt with by Parliament some 3 years ago, and National saw major deficiencies in it, and so did Mr Marc Alexander, who contributed to that as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EOne of those deficiencies is the very, very limited statutory regime for monetary compensation for victims. New Zealand lags behind in that area, particularly compared with Australia, and I know that for a fact, because members of my immediate family have had the direct experience of compensation for the effects of a crime\u2014in fact, a serious assault\u2014in Australia. We do not have that here, so we have the bizarre position of the victims\u2019 rights legislation not having an adequate mechanism with which to compensate victims. However, in this situation, in the event that an offender\u2019s rights might be transgressed, there is the opportunity for the victim to get compensation on a truly random basis. How would any victim know, in advance, whether his or her particular offender is likely to have some form of grievance? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the cases that were involved, this happened with the very worst offenders, because they are the ones who come to the attention of the prison authorities. They are the ones against whom the prison authorities have to take special measures. We heard from the previous speaker of the incredibly egregious behaviour of offenders that led them into the punishment regime. Ordinary offenders do not get there. They have to be particularly bad, violent, unruly, or difficult before that happens. All of that brings the offender to the attention of the prison authorities, and then they go through the behavioural change regime, I guess they would call it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt is in the application of that regime that the alleged defaults occurred, which then caused the judge to award compensation of up to $130,000. In this scenario, the worst offenders in jail\u2014who had committed the crimes, the ones who caused the most difficulty to the prison authorities, and indeed to other prisoners\u2014were the ones who went through the regime that then led to the claim for which the judges awarded compensation. On that lottery, the victim then has a right to those funds. It is an absurd proposition\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0e4b6f3549141949faad9193840fbb8\u0022\u003EHon Georgina te Heuheu\u003C/span\u003E: A lottery!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261302e89858a46b294b04691db3425e5\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: But it is a bizarre lottery. It is a lottery based on bad behaviour\u2014bad behaviour by the offender, actually, because that is what initiates the whole process. So as a matter of principle it seems fundamentally wrong that prisoners would get compensation that then leads to victims getting compensation. It is wrong in principle on that basis. I do look forward to the select committee trying to deal with what is, frankly, an absurd conundrum that they face. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ENow maybe what they should be doing is going back to first principles and asking: \u201CHow do we compensate victims more effectively?\u201D. Because that is, after all, much of the motivation of this legislation. How do we ensure that victims get properly compensated? Well, the answer to that is to actually look at the victims\u2019 rights legislation, not this particular legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EMr Marc Alexander said that he felt forced to accept the reality that prisoners would get monetary compensation. I would not like to misrepresent Mr Alexander, but that is what I understood him to say. I say that that is incorrect. The international conventions do not require that. The Attorney-General has to consent to that sort of thing. We could, on a statutory basis, essentially say: \u201CNo consent, end of story.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI want to make it perfectly clear: National clearly wants proper regimes to ensure that prisoners are not mistreated. There is a range of options to do that, as the Deputy Prime Minister would well acknowledge. That range of options does not need to include monetary compensation. For instance, and this would be in the nature of a hierarchy, one can have administrative disciplinary procedures in relation to staff. That does happen from time to time\u2014people get demoted in a position, and things of that nature. For more serious matters\u2014and there have been a number of them\u2014the staff would get prosecuted. They themselves would be punished for egregious breaches of the law. There might be more general retraining of staff\u2014a clearer understanding of how to manage prisons. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EFinally, of course, and this has arguably been one of the more serious breaches in this area, there has been a lack of accountability by senior officials. When one gets a culture occurring, as seems to have occurred in a number of prisons, where quite a large number of staff have been prosecuted, dismissed, or engaged in completely inappropriate behaviour with prisoners\u2014it would be fair to say in some cases with the prisoners consent, but I will not go down that line too far\u2014then one knows that something is fundamentally flawed in relation to the management. So the management needs to be held accountable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EMinisters need to hold their senior executives accountable. This is, after all, and the Government consistently says it, a core State function. Therefore, Ministers have direct responsibility and accountability. And when one gets a pattern of behaviour the buck actually stops with the Minister. Members might say: \u201CThat\u2019s all very well, you deal with the problem of the staff, but how does that help the prisoner?\u201D. Well, the way it helps the prisoner when his or her rights have been offended is that the breaches stop. That is the remedy for the prisoner. The breach of the law stops, and they are correctly treated. I think it was Mr Franks earlier in the debate who said that they have not suffered a monetary loss, so therefore why should they receive monetary compensation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI shall expand on that point slightly. The Government sort of argues that there has to be monetary compensation to sheet home the level of responsibility and to truly sheet home to the Department of Corrections the level of responsibility. That is simply false. There are other ways to sheet home responsibility. I would guess that the prospects of job security would have to be the most important thing, and more important than that are the risks and prospects of prosecutions. What do the guards in Abu Ghraib fear at the moment? They do not fear that the prisoners might get monetary compensation in Iraq. They fear that they will be court-martialled. I return to the fundamental proposition. There should be no monetary compensation for prisoners. It is not necessary. Furthermore, it is wrong to put victims through that lottery. The problem is the legislation itself. That needs to be fixed so that victims are properly compensated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u0022217e5052853746b0a71c563fba5712ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022217e5052853746b0a71c563fba5712ef\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E I support the Prisoners and Victims Claims Bill and I want to see it off to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u0022feaca7551b6e4b14b522c0921243462c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022feaca7551b6e4b14b522c0921243462c\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to take a call on the Prisoners and Victims Claims Bill. I want to say to the House and to those New Zealanders who might be listening that a fraud has been perpetrated on this House tonight and on the public of New Zealand. We have in the introduction of this bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0f7b209a36d4684aa92506bf89d36e2\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Which Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f78fc72927b7467896b975b747c44b66\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: In the first place, the Hon Phil Goff, but in the end, the Government, overall. This bill builds huge expectations for victims of crime, without actually delivering, and pretends to take away from offenders\u2014prisoners\u2014the ability to receive money for any supposed wrongs that have been done to them while they were under the care of the Department of Corrections. Of course, the Government was under pressure to do something about this issue, but torn as it is between wondering whether to continue the right of prisoners to make claims, but at the same time to satisfy the public demand for the rights of victims to take precedence over the rights of criminals, it has come up with this hybrid legislation that, in the end, probably will satisfy only the offenders and will do very little to fulfil any expectations that victims might have that the hurts and suffering they have had at the hands of criminal offenders will be catered for in the long run. That is why I have said that a fraud is being perpetrated on the New Zealand public and on this House with the introduction of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThat is not surprising. This Government, through its various Ministers, is great for doing the great huff-puff job, pretending to be disgusted at certain things. We have seen that this week with the issue of Judy Bailey\u2019s salary increase, where the Prime Minister and the Minister Steve Maharey did a huge mock-disgust act. The Prime Minister said that the pay rise resembled something of a culture of extravagance in TVNZ, it was not acceptable, and she would not stand for it. What did they do today? When three of the directors on the board of TVNZ offered their resignations they were given a little slap with a wet rag and told no, they should stay in their jobs\u2014but not before the Prime Minister and Steve Maharey had huffed and puffed in the last few days about the disgusting nature of Judy Bailey\u2019s salary rise. When they had a chance to do something to satisfy the public disgust at that pay rise, they did not do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EA similar pattern of behaviour is contained in the issue we are addressing now. When the issue arose of prisoners getting huge payouts for supposed hurt and damage they had received while in the corrections system, and the public of New Zealand got all worked up, that, of course, was a signal for the Minister Phil Goff to give some of his vein-popping speeches and feign disgust as well. He is very good at feigning disgust, I might say, but in the end the words are not as important as the delivery. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EAs I say, we are seeing in this bill expectations raised for victims of crime. If it is a proper thing to do, if there are some principles on which this House believes that victims should be compensated for the hurt they have received, then that should be addressed through the victims\u2019 rights legislation and not through some half-pie mumbo-jumbo that is contained in the bill before us tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe other thing is, if we are truly trying to satisfy a public disgust at huge payouts to criminals, then this bill does not achieve that. The reality is that if one looks at the detail, and considers the hoops and barriers that victims have to go through to try to claim some compensation out of a fund into which money won by a prisoner has been placed, even if victims of any particular crime could be identified, it is highly unlikely that they will win anything back. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EOne then gets that invidious kind of situation where, on the one hand, the Government is saying: \u201CHere we are, we\u2019re setting up this framework whereby if this prisoner gets a huge payout the fund will go in trust and as a person who suffered at the hands of that prisoner, you can make a claim and you can win some of that fund.\u201D Clearly, that is not true. If one looks at the detail, offenders will still get the money. If no victims are identified, and in many, many cases it will not be possible to identify the victims, then the money will go to the offender, anyway. So nobody, not one person who has been disgusted with the huge payouts this year, and in the past, will be satisfied with that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003ESecondly, if the judge does not approve a claim, and there are a whole lot of reasons why a judge may not approve such a claim again, the money will go to the offender. If anything is left over, even if a victim was able to win a part of it, the remainder is handed over to the offender anyway. I guess on balance it is more likely that offenders who have managed to get a compensation payout will end up having that money paid to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EOf course, there is the other side to this, and that is why my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and I say that there is a better way to address the suffering and hurt of victims. Under this framework victims will be absolutely traumatised if they bother to apply for part of the payout of any of the funds anyway. As I say, it is highly unlikely, when they consider the hoops and barriers, that they will even bother. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EBut as I say, if there is a good principle on which this House should be seeking to develop a framework to compensate victims properly, then this is not the way to do it. We do not need to put victims through a trauma again. They are already victims. Under this bill a victim\u2019s application for a payout from the fund is shown to the offender who can then comment on it. What victim would want comment from some person\u2014for instance, why would a woman who is a victim of a rape go through such a stupid procedure and become traumatised all over again? Why would she? The victim\u2019s comments go back to the offender. The victims may have to reappear in court in support of their application. Again, why should that be the case? [Interruption] If it is wrong, the Minister can explain why that statement is wrong. What he cannot deny, though, is that his bill raises expectations for victims, many of which expectations will not be fulfilled. They just will not be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThat is why I say that a fraud has been perpetrated on this House, on the New Zealand public, and on the victims of crime. This is a hybrid bill, no doubt hastily put together even though these payouts have occurred over a long period of time. In looking at the way it has been set out, one can only ask who put it together. Of course, the Minister will claim credit for it. However, it does not do him any credit. There is a better way of compensating victims than the way presented in this bill. The Minister should withdraw this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9c6a21ff1384f0598522101eabb6c57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9c6a21ff1384f0598522101eabb6c57\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E As there was no twelfth Speaker from the other side\u2014and I take the point made by David Carter to me the other day that if we wanted a second call we are free to take one in a situation where National has had three calls\u2014I thought I would spend just a few moments on the issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI am quite concerned about some of the statements made, especially by Dr Mapp. When he mentioned the Iraq situation, it made me think of the Middle East and Afghanistan. It made me think also of the situation in Guantanamo Bay. What level could we possibly get to in New Zealand if we did not have this type of legislation? Almost what Dr Mapp says is that the prison officer involved should be slapped over the wrist, perhaps demoted or fired, and off he or she goes home. We could have a Guantanamo Bay situation in New Zealand, and there would be no penalty on any Government. I am astonished that the Greens are opposing this legislation. I would have thought that this legislation was strong and did the sort of thing the Greens want to see done, because the suggestion by the National Party\u2014one that I do not think is fully appreciated by the Greens\u2014is that we could have a Guantanamo Bay situation in New Zealand, not in Cuba, or somewhere else, and all that would happen is the prison officer would get a slap over the wrist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First is strong on law and order. We are interested in this bill going to the select committee. We have been calling for it for a long time, and we have wanted to see it go there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4b689fc1ea64456a6ca088de4bc5d67\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Gross misrepresentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232698669d7f747c98f4a8a79027b876b\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Mapp says I am grossly misinterpreting what he was saying, but it is a logical conclusion of what he said. It suggests that the National Party, with its continuing coalition with the Greens on the last couple of bills, has not fully understood the nature of the legislation. That was very, very clear in the speech made by Ms te Heuheu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022257a1376dcd7489e9a3828412f7605f8\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: It does not protect them from physical abuse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222abdbecffb1247abbe29403092a4ef36\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Tanczos keeps interjecting on me. I do not mind explaining to him that we could get a situation where, if we opposed this legislation and supported Dr Mapp\u2019s view, some Government could have a regime\u2014and I know it would never happen in New Zealand; I am speaking theoretically, and, as lawmakers we make sure that even the worst situation cannot develop\u2014[Interruption] Dr Mapp and Mr Tanczos are voting the same way on this legislation, so they are supporting each other even though they say they are not. I suppose that is the best place for me to finish on this particular issue. It shows the ridiculousness of the whole situation. The Greens and the National Party oppose this legislation but say they do not support each other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022882d427aaa3e4e668743a4a4c79ede37\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022882d427aaa3e4e668743a4a4c79ede37\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Prisoners\u0027 and Victims\u0027 Claims Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 4 April 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022c95619d8ea454824b9ee7dff1d37c948\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c95619d8ea454824b9ee7dff1d37c948\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there a means of moving an amendment to that motion, to omit the permission to sit outside normal hours? I would like to move that we omit the words that represent the departure from the normal Standing Orders relating to the sitting times of that committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5e48e9c6f3a4dfe92d7a6fbccf0526c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5e48e9c6f3a4dfe92d7a6fbccf0526c\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand that the member might be able to seek leave to do that, but it is my understanding that it should also be in writing if there is to be an amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b96e68c8e8c4d0e9641b82c7a15ad10\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: I did not know that that was to be the condition of sending the bill to the select committee until the motion was moved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d2872785f18474ea5aa183ee4032da9\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: The member should have read my first reading speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022469ec67cbf394f60afb6a332a668c05a\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister mentioned the committee. He did not mention those conditions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225249e0d2ba344767a30f114c4458fdd4\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I advise the member that Standing Order 284(4) states: \u201CAn amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227c0be5ba23104d4eb39e4de9351f0bbd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002211e4e9ce89044152bdd32595b100ba8d\u0022\u003E Committees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227ab1d613117f4bc8ad269171678805d8\u0022\u003EBusiness of Select Committees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c02a6c2201344545a3645bc442b33a58\u0022\u003EAppointments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022dff3eca7f0f54ba79b0a4c53b3602125\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dff3eca7f0f54ba79b0a4c53b3602125\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That a committee be established to undertake a review of New Zealand\u2019s existing constitutional arrangements by identifying and describing:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ENew Zealand\u2019s constitutional development since 1840\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003Ethe key elements in New Zealand\u2019s constitutional structure, and the relationships between those elements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003Ethe sources of New Zealand\u2019s constitution\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003Ethe processes other countries have followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms, and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003Ethe processes which it would be appropriate for New Zealand to follow if significant constitutional reforms were considered in the future;\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003Ethe committee to consist of seven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, and United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIn speaking to the motion, I say first of all that I regret the fact that by leave, even though, obviously, the Government parties are not going to oppose it, New Zealand First and National removed themselves from the select committee, and indeed therefore from the ability to participate in the committee should they change their mind at any point in the future. It seems to me in looking at the terms of reference that they are both very broad and encompassing and do not bias in the least the nature of the conclusions to be arrived at by the select committee. It is a very open process that is being proposed within this motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIt would not come as a surprise to most members in this House, even to those who know me at all reasonably well, that I am a constitutional conservative\u2014that is, I am a constitutional monarchist. I believe very firmly in the supremacy of Parliament, I reject the notion that the will of Parliament can be overruled by outside bodies, I believe in accountability to the democratic electorate at large, and I believe in the rule of law. But it is clear that over a long period of time we have come to the stage where a large number of questions have been raised about the nature of New Zealand\u2019s constitution: how it works, what it means, how we have got to where we are, what the various documents mean within that constitution, and, should we wish to change those\u2014and this committee does not deal with the issue of whether we wish to change them\u2014what the processes will be for considering any changes that might be suggested. In some countries such as Australia, that issue of the process of change has been quite a difficult one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is traditionally regarded as having an unwritten constitution. It is, therefore, similar to the United Kingdom and one of, I think, only three countries, it is now claimed, that have unwritten constitutions. I am one of those who do not feel that that is some great disadvantage. There are any number of distinctly non-democratic States around the world that have extremely democratically written constitutions that are significantly disobeyed with great frequency. In fact, I have pointed out on many occasions that those countries that have a long and largely continuous history of democracy in the world are almost universally constitutional monarchies. The United States is actually the one great exception to that rule, but, of course, it chose to elect a monarch in its constitution. The United States president is an elected monarch and mirrors in his powers the powers assumed to be the powers of the King as they ought to have been in the 18th century, as opposed to the powers that the Americans thought George III was improperly exercising. In a sense, what one has in the United States is a kind of elected constitutional monarchy, and as we now largely seem to have Bushes one after the other, it may potentially become an actual kind of constitutional monarchy as well, with the election being a kind of confirmation process around the succession. [Interruption] That is right. If George is going, can Jeb be far behind? That is the question now being asked about the States in the short to medium term future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe notion that our constitution is unwritten is actually a bit of a nonsense. There is not a thing called the \u201Cconstitution\u201D, but we have a Constitution Act, an Electoral Act, and a whole range of other Acts. What is significant about those Acts is that they are not subject to interpretation that overrides the will of Parliament. In other words, there is not a supreme law called the New Zealand constitution against which other New Zealand statutes have to be measured in terms of their constitutionality. For those brought up in the 1960s who think that is a wonderful, liberal idea that will lead to the progress of human kind, as a benign Supreme Court overrides nasty right-wing laws, I simply invite them to consider, first of all, the fact that progressive income tax was ruled out by the Supreme Court in the early 1930s and, in more recent times, the US Supreme Court has not shown itself as the vanguard of the democratic left\u2014indeed, it is rather distinctly not moving in that direction in more recent times. As we are perhaps beginning to learn in New Zealand, the inclinations of supreme courts depend very much on the views of those who are appointed to them, rather than, necessarily, some broad all-encompassing view of life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESo we have many constitutional documents that are written, which have arisen in a large number of different ways. I think it is very important that we investigate them. It is often said that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of the New Zealand constitution, but that is a theory that does not have much historical weight. It is something that has been asserted as a doctrine in the latter part of the 20th century; the notion that it was the founding document of the New Zealand constitution would have seemed a totally bizarre notion to most people in the 19th century. However, that it is now a constitutional document of some sort is an unchallengeable assertion within the New Zealand context. But what the meaning of that is, and how that relates to other things is, of course, open to a huge variety of debate, and part of the select committee process will enable that debate to occur within an open and democratic framework\u2014which, again, is why I regret the fact that the main Opposition party, the National Party, is not participating. The ACT party is quite right to have seen the fact that the committee can be the potential for exploring a whole range of issues, which can be properly explored in that way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EBy no means is the committee there to assume a certain outcome. It is not there to assume that we will turn ourselves into a republic, although one occasionally hears the faint tinkling of those outside who are lining themselves up for the prospect of becoming New Zealand\u2019s first elected president. There may even be one or two people inside the House who are suffering from the delusion that they might fill that role at some point within the not too foreseeable future. Certainly, even though I am a monarchist, I sometimes think that perhaps we might want to consider that issue when the reign of the current monarch comes to an end\u2014not that there is anything personal about that, because the whole thing about being a constitutional monarchist is that one puts aside one\u2019s views about the particular nature of the person who might be the monarch at the time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe issue of process has been a very important one. The Australian development was around a very formal and quite difficult process, but it broke down on the very simple matter of how the president was to be chosen. Had there been consensus around that, the Australians would probably now have a republic at this point in time. There was clearly a majority for being a republic, but not for any of the particular versions of how to choose a president. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThis is a process that we should undertake quite slowly and carefully, not rushing it. As I said, I do not object to the leave sought by National and New Zealand First. If at any point either party wishes to become part of the process, as they see it working and not being what they fear, I am very happy to make parliamentary time available for a motion to enable membership to be added. The Government has indicated that Government members will support the election of the Hon Peter Dunne as the chairperson of the committee. Ironically, by withdrawing from membership National and New Zealand First have now ensured that Labour will have a majority on the select committee. Mr Dunne is known for his careful thinking, for not rushing to conclusions, and for listening fairly to all points of view, and I think he is an excellent person to be considered for the chair of the committee. I might say that, amongst my own colleagues, there has been almost a huge rush of volunteers to be members of the committee. I have to say to those who have volunteered so far that I have the faint suspicion that those who volunteered the fastest may be the least qualified to serve, and perhaps the more reluctant might be the more appropriate to serve on a very careful process around a constitutional committee of this sort. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6708c2b75394e248ab9904a779b89a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6708c2b75394e248ab9904a779b89a9\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E That was a very considered speech from the Leader of the House. Many of the points he put forward in support of the motion seem, on the face of it, to be quite reasonable. The National Party, however, has decided not to participate in this process, because we are most uncomfortable with the terms of reference. We believe they are the only terms of reference that currently exist, as stated in the motion itself. I will go into those reasons in a few moments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI make it clear to the House that if the Government were to be more upfront about the intention behind the select committee, we would be part of it. It seemed to me that in the Leader of the House\u2019s speech, where he hit upon the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi and the issue of where that sits inside our constitutional arrangements, there was the seed of a new motion that may well see the National Party participate in this exercise. To that effect, I will move an amendment to the motion later in my speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI remind the House that in the year 2000 a constitutional conference was held in the Legislative Council Chamber. There was a compilation made of all the contributions at that conference, which Colin James put together. I have recently taken the time to read through those contributions, in order to get a bit of a feel for where New Zealanders\u2019 thinking was about those issues 4 years ago. I think it is a shame that the Government, if it were serious about looking at New Zealand\u2019s constitution, did not start with those fairly learned contributions that, as my colleague Dr Mapp said\u2014he was a major player at that conference\u2014were most divided on the issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EAlthough this motion speaks of the constitutional development of New Zealand since 1840, that topic can be quite authoritatively found in that book put together by Colin James. The key elements of New Zealand\u2019s constitutional structure, and the relationship between those elements, are thoroughly explored in those papers, and the sources of New Zealand\u2019s constitution are similarly dealt with. Perhaps the processes other countries followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms are not so well followed. So my question has to be: why put that in this motion if there were not, ultimately, some intention to move New Zealand down that particular track?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThere, I think, we start to lose the plot a little bit. Although I accept that the Hon Peter Dunne would be a fair chairman, he has publicly stated his desire to see New Zealand a republic. So I have this view that if Parliament is to progress down this line, perhaps there should be a discussion publicly, and then the option should be put to New Zealanders in the general election to come. I think it is that general election and the comments made by Dr Michael Cullen about the Treaty of Waitangi that have caused the Government the most problems on this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI accept that the Government says it wants to do this in good faith, but I look at a couple of other things it has done this year\u2014supposedly in good faith. One was the review into race-based funding in Government departments, agencies, and entities. When that issue was first raised by Dr Brash earlier this year, the Government\u2019s first reaction was to deny it ever happened. It said there were no race-based funding arrangements in the New Zealand Government\u2019s dealings with people. Then today a report was released that totally acknowledges the very vast extent of that type of policy making in the Government\u2019s activities, but there is no commitment of any real substance to do anything about those issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe can also point to the issue of the seabed and foreshore proposals. The Government went around the countryside and spent millions of dollars in holding hui, up and down the country. It then went through a very exhaustive select committee process, only to turn up in the House, once the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee reported back, with what was effectively a new bill, a 150-odd page Supplementary Order Paper, that the House was supposed just to adopt and pass\u2014which it ultimately did. Some of us voted against it, but most of the people who wanted, and who were on, that select committee were party to that complete denial of the pleas of submitters to it, and simply pushed through the legislation they wanted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI have also heard the Leader of the House, Michael Cullen, say that he would never tolerate a situation in which the will of Parliament was interfered with or overruled by people from outside. Members should correct me if I am wrong, but did the Prime Minister not stand up in this House yesterday and tell us that over the recent debacle of the high salaries at Television New Zealand, heads would roll? Did we not hear today that at least three directors have offered to resign\u2014to roll their own heads\u2014and that the Minister of Broadcasting has said that that would not be necessary? The Government has blown in the wind and done a bit of trumpeting, but it will do exactly what it wants to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe can ask the same thing of the Leader of the House with regard to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision over the Zaoui issue. Parliament makes it very clear in legislation that bail is not available to someone who is incarcerated as a result of his or her being named in a security risk certificate. But the Supreme Court has decided that whatever Parliament wants is not good enough, and it has granted the man bail. Well, good luck to him, it would seem. Those are two cases where Parliament\u2019s will has been overruled in very recent times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EPerhaps that is a reason for having a discussion about our constitutional arrangements. I get back to the real reason behind the Government\u2019s wanting to set up this committee. I believe it wants to take the issue of race relations, and the issue of the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2004 and beyond, off the political agenda.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003ESo I want to move an amendment. It is that all the words from \u201Cconstitutional arrangements\u201D to \u201Cthe committee to consist of\u201D shall be removed and replaced with a motion that will read: \u201C\u2026 to undertake a review of New Zealand\u2019s existing constitutional arrangements and the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in contemporary New Zealand. The committee is to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, New Zealand National 3, New Zealand First 1, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, United Future 1.\u201D I will supply that motion to the House before we move on. If the Leader of the House is so upset that National is not being part of this new select committee, surely National\u2019s representation on it should be much more akin to its representation as the main Opposition party than the motion he is proposing allows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI wonder also just how serious the Government is about the results that come from this committee, when an equal weighting in the committee\u2019s work is supposed to go on the consideration of the steps that New Zealand might take were it to embark on constitutional reform. I fear that many of the steps have already been taken, and the Supreme Court decision is no doubt a very significant step in that direction. I question whether the proposed nomination of Margaret Wilson to the Speaker\u2019s seat in this House is part of that agenda, because there is no doubt that Margaret Wilson has a republican view of New Zealand\u2019s future. Although the National Party does not want New Zealanders not to discuss these issues, I think it is very appropriate that we get right to the heart of them and that this House accept the amendment proposed by the National Party to the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002264b5a7e92b264025a5941c9c2d85c4f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264b5a7e92b264025a5941c9c2d85c4f3\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is an interesting suggestion that has been put forward by the minority Labour Government, and it has been put forward in a very interesting way by the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen. I think I can agree with many of the things Dr Cullen said during the course of his speech. In agreeing with them, I feel that those were reasons why this motion should not proceed. It was one of those situations where the more he spoke, the more I thought he was speaking against the motion rather than for it. But I appreciate the open and frank way in which he approached this issue. It should be discussed in an open and frank manner, because it is of vital importance to the future of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First takes the view that if we are to proceed in the way suggested by Dr Cullen\u2014as I said, I can go along with a lot of what he had to say\u2014then time on this type of issue would be best spent by a royal commission. It should not be dealt with by members of Parliament, who have many other things to do next year, let alone sort out any future problems with the foreshore and seabed legislation, and suchlike, that might arise and that took a bit of time this year. There is a general election coming up next year, and if the ACT party feels that it will not have any contribution to make afterwards, then it can surely spend time on the select committee, because it may not be around after the election. Maybe that is why Mr Hide wants an ACT member on the committee. I can see his point of view.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First expects to be busy electioneering next year, with a view to being back in a more dominant position after the next election. So partly there is a practical reason for New Zealand First\u2019s viewpoint. We have other things to do to help run the country rather than tie down a member on a select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIf the job were done properly, this committee would probably meet for 6 months. How long would the committee go for? It would go for quite a long time. I think Mr Dunne, as chairperson elect, agrees with me that this committee would have to sit for a considerable length of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWe have seen how the minority Labour Government operates on constitutional issues through, for example, the Privy Council matter and the Supreme Court legislation. The Supreme Court Act was rammed through this House. It had the support of only 38 percent of those able to vote at the last election, yet it was rammed through the House. In fact, the majority on both sides was the same: 38.1 percent of those eligible to vote at the last election voted for that Supreme Court legislation, and 38.1 percent voted against. Yet the Labour Government rammed it through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere would be people who would come along to the parliamentary select committee and ask whether they were really wasting their time, because, as the Labour Government had proved that they had wasted their time in the past, they would presume they would be wasting their time in the future. Once again, if Prime Minister Helen Clark decides that a thing will go a certain way, it will be done that way. Everybody in the Labour caucus will jump to heel, supported by United Future\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbd6d35460c04825b6c2ce52148a718a\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: And the Greens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccff761fbddd48de9b38f91e3476b31b\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014and the Greens, of course, as Mr Tanczos interjected. We have only to note what has happened about the appointment of Margaret Wilson as Speaker. There was no consultation with New Zealand First, but through an agreement with United Future and the Greens\u2014bang!\u2014it was done. So much for discussing that issue with other members of the House! Of course, I take many of the points made by Dr Cullen about the United States and our constitution, and I am reminded of a speech made by Winston Churchill in about 1946, quoted recently in The Economist. He told an enraptured audience in Fulton, Missouri, that the Americans and the British must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man that are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world\u2014which, through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, trial by jury, and English common law, I go on to say, are the basis of New Zealand\u2019s unwritten constitution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThose are the foundation stones of the way in which New Zealand operates. They have served, and will continue to serve, New Zealand well. One would feel that this committee that was suggested by the minority Labour Government would be a partisan committee\u2014based on the experience I have had, at any rate, in the last 2\u00BD years in this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOf course, one of the things I would have liked to see in the terms of reference is a question as to whether New Zealand is independent and, further, if we are independent from Britain, what our independence day is. That is a question that might create some interest. Some people might say a date in 1835, some people might say 6 February 1840, and other people might have other dates. That particular issue will have importance, I think, when we look at Peter Dunne\u2019s bill later on about what date New Zealand Day should be. Should New Zealand Day be the same as the day on which New Zealand obtained its independence? I suggest that that date was 21 November 1947, at the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster legislation, because until that legislation was passed, this House, for example, was unable to get rid of the Legislative Council. That council was established by legislation in 1852, and until the Statute of Westminster legislation was passed, this House was still bound by an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So the \u201Cconsent and reply\u201D legislation had to be passed in 1947, and it was only then that this legislature was able to move on in the early 1950s to get rid of the Legislative Council. I would think, then, that at some stage or another and in the course of a royal commission on the issue, New Zealand would consider just what day New Zealand\u2019s independence day is, and whether we should be celebrating an independence day or something along those lines. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOne question about the Treaty of Waitangi has been issued. There are various views on the treaty, and one view questions whether a minor naval official could enter into a documented agreement\u2014which he thought he would call a treaty but he could have called it anything he liked\u2014with a group of people who were virtually stone-age barbarians and who were unable to read and write, in a country they did not have possession of and authority over\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272490619fdd54b55b2daa53f13ee1b70\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re talking about New Zealand, not Pakistan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d0574c7c49a46028ca8a27da55e62a1\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The racist member, Mr Tamihere, can keep on with his remarks. But if we look at, say, the Montevideo Convention, we can say for sure that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a treaty. The reason is that it did not comply with the requirements of two parties who were sovereign in their countries, because both parties had to have clearly sovereignty-defined territory. So in that sense, the so-called Treaty of Waitangi can never be a treaty. Mr Brownlee has raised an interesting point, but just as New Zealand First is not interested in supporting the Government\u2019s motion, so, of course, it is not interested in supporting the National Party\u2019s motion, which is based on a feeling of over-importance on the part of the National Party in this House. From what I can recall, Mr Brownlee said that the membership should comprise four Labour members, three National members, and one member from New Zealand First. We know that the sense of proportionality has been knocked out of the window altogether there. If the committee is ever to be effective it should have a membership of four, two, and one. So what that amendment betrays is, as I said, the feeling of over-importance the National Party has in this House. One will have to wait and see after the next election whether even a four-two-one situation will be appropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis is a very interesting situation, and any future development of New Zealand\u2019s history, I say, is a matter of the constitution, written or unwritten. People might say that on a particular day in Parliament this matter was debated and a select committee was established, but New Zealand First does not want to be part of that select committee, because on the evidence we have had in just this past 2\u00BD years we cannot believe that the Labour Party will act fairly. We have seen evidence of that with the Supreme Court Bill. We know, for example, that the Greens said they would listen to the voice of the M\u0101ori people, but when the legislation came through and M\u0101ori were opposed to that bill, the Greens still went ahead and supported it. It was just the Greens and Labour who pushed that bill through this House by the slimmest of majorities. So the Labour Party, if it wants to do anything, it will do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI think that, in all fairness, the best way to consider this issue is to give a royal commission a broad-brush set of instructions, and that will encourage all New Zealanders to go to that royal commission knowing they will be given a fair hearing and a fair conclusion. At the end of the day, whatever happens, New Zealand First will expect to see a referendum to give effect to whatever the decision will be. That is totally in keeping with New Zealand First\u2019s view. I notice nodding heads, but I will not name the members. Time will tell whether that will be the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002232f554f0c9d845638e74e8883d37f877\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232f554f0c9d845638e74e8883d37f877\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E That was Mr Dail Jones of New Zealand First. I fear that those \u201Cnodding heads\u201D might have been people nodding off to sleep. I am a little surprised by Dail Jones\u2019 contribution where he said, I think, that it would be a waste of his time to turn up to the select committee. If that is to be the measure that that member applies to what he does or does not do around Parliament, he will have a lot of spare time indeed. I have to say that I am also a bit surprised by the National Party\u2019s reasoning for not turning up to this committee. Its reason is that its members do not agree with this committee and they do not agree with where it is going. Well, that is part of the feature of being in Opposition, actually. Large numbers of bills go through this House that we as Opposition MPs are vehemently opposed to. There are select committees sitting on legislation that we do not agree with, but we turn up in order to improve the legislation and to take part in the debate, and because we live in hope of convincing our Labour colleagues they are wrong. But the idea that when we see something we disagree with we somehow pick up our toys, hop out of the sandpit, I have to say is unparliamentary indeed. So the ACT party will certainly be taking part in this select committee, and we will have Mr Stephen Franks as our member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThere is nothing more important than the constitutional arrangements of a country\u2014nothing. Like it or not, the Government has set up a select committee to have a look at those arrangements. I think that it behoves us all to take an interest in what that select committee is up to. Let us just think of the things we will be considering. We will be considering the rules within which the Government operates and, in particular, the protections that citizens have from the Government. If we look at our constitutional arrangements, we see that they have sort of grown up in a haphazard way, and that is so particularly in the last 20 years. We have as some sort of constitutional principle now some partnership between M\u0101ori and the Crown, but what that partnership is has never been explored in a consistent and considered way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI think of New Zealand First, which has wasted many, many hours of this Parliament\u2019s time in trying to explore, in question time, what are the actual principles of the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014principles that infest large sections of the legislative make-up of New Zealand. Dail Jones has asked questions, Winston Peters has asked questions, and they have got nowhere. But they are very important questions. This select committee is the precise place at which New Zealand First should turn up and start exploring what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, what they mean to the Government, and what they mean to New Zealanders. But, no, New Zealand First has said it will not turn up. Why? Because Dail Jones thinks it would be a waste of his time. Well, he could be right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a603af8a4e7743a886e88fcf107f5d69\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: When is this member going to resign? When is ACT going to get a decent leader?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a39f3babaa1f4098bfc768735deb1e0c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It is always lovely to get Trevor Mallard\u2019s positive contribution! It is always wonderful when Trevor Mallard shakes himself awake and puts forward an intellectual contribution to a debate about the constitution of New Zealand. I just say to him that the TVNZ board is not sitting over here. We are actually doing OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d13351492884e9ab0fa7e31ab3920b5\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: At 2 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291b4b96b3f97479396b7346aa2b6e768\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Trevor Mallard says 3 percent. Well, I remember when Helen Clark was on 2 percent and Trevor Mallard was running around trying to do the numbers to keep her in place in her party, and things turned out right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022396511221ca14e7b83ac7ece9faa82be\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: And it worked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d0f2c14af6e4c35be83b615f592fc6b\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It did work. So I tell Mr Mallard to hold his breath, just wait, and he will be surprised at what can happen. The ACT party had the opportunity to participate in this select committee. Trevor Mallard probably does not like that, but the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was very pleased. I wrote him a letter, with the help of my colleague Mr Stephen Franks, and I have to say we had a very good meeting with Michael Cullen about our concerns and what we would like to do in the committee. Our particular concern was whether the committee would be adequately resourced to do the job, because this is a big job and if we are going to be involved, we want it to be done well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWe raised other concerns. We asked what limits were there on Parliament\u2019s ability to take away a person\u2019s property. To be honest, I suspect there are none. So this Parliament could decide, with 61 votes, to deprive any New Zealander of his or her private property. I suspect there are no constitutional limits on Parliament\u2019s ability to come along and deprive someone of property. That is a serious deficiency in our constitutional arrangements. So we said to Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue in the committee. I would have thought the National Party would be keen to stand up for private property rights and try to get some protections in our constitutional arrangements, so that a Government with a bare majority could not turn up in Parliament and deprive people of their property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EAnother of our concerns is the ability of Parliament to overturn contracts. We know that a Parliament with 61 votes can overturn any contract that it likes\u2014no compensation required. Mr Franks and I suggested to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue as part of these constitutional considerations, because we believe there should be limits on what Governments can and cannot do; and the constitution is the place to sort that out. We see the ACT party as having a positive impact on this select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EAnother of our concerns is the current excess taxation of New Zealanders. ACT has stood up and complained about excess taxation. The National Party has stood up and complained, following our lead, about excess taxation. New Zealand First has stood up and complained. Likewise, United Future has stood up and complained. So we were interested in what sort of constitutional arrangements could be established that might constrain a Government\u2019s spending and constrain a Government\u2019s ability to raise taxes\u2014again, with a simple majority of 61 votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E I have to say, and I think my colleague Stephen Franks will agree, that Michael Cullen was very open to our asking these questions as part of this committee. Why? Because it will be a committee of Parliament. Now, I do not think that Michael Cullen shares our view of what the constitution should be, and I do not think we share many of his views, but we are in our Parliament and we will be turning up and putting forward our views and asking our questions. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen accepted that. So it behoves us all to take part in the parliamentary process and to represent the views of all New Zealanders. I am disappointed that the National Party and New Zealand First, in some hissy fit over what a committee might do, what it might come up with, what particular process it might follow, have decided they will not partake, but would have allowed this select committee to be entirely run by the Government, if it were not for the ACT party and the Greens. They are the only two parties that will be standing there, aside from the Government, asking the tough questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee might scoff, but who is doing it, if it is not us? Because the National Party is not turning up, New Zealand First is not turning up. I see Dr Cullen in the Chamber, and I ask him how many times have we heard New Zealand First members in this House get up and ask questions about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and what they mean\u2014principles that infest all our legislation going back years? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e43318ac0a074e1fb980181248852db3\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc37be5c5de14a6b88f80c519832e4b9\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227873bd070199423f8da1862685d84f5c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: That is quite right, but the New Zealand First Party has a golden opportunity to get on the select committee and actually do some work to discover what it might mean, to discover the implications, yet Dail Jones says: \u201COh, no, it would be a waste of my time; to hell with that.\u201D I say: \u201CShame on New Zealand First and shame on National for not accepting your parliamentary obligations!\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc7fb546d48d42dcac2d740850026c59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc7fb546d48d42dcac2d740850026c59\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E This country is in a process of constitutional change, and it is part of a slow process of decolonisation. That makes some people in this country uncomfortable. It is right that it should do so, because, if that means anything at all, it must mean a shift in the bases of power. It is not clear to everyone that we are undergoing such a process, because this country is unusually fortunate. Our constitutional debate is not forged in civil war or in violent revolution, but in peaceful evolution. That allows us a unique opportunity. It allows us to take a measured approach. It allows us to take a considered process of full public participation and an incremental approach towards an agreed destination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ERecent events in this country have added impetus to this process of constitutional change. We have seen the establishment of our Supreme Court and the assertion, as a result, of judicial independence. That has been important, because the doctrine of judicial independence has been academic in this country while our final appeal court has resided in London. We have seen the enactment of the foreshore and seabed legislation, and it has raised, quite properly, questions of what are the constitutional protections for tangata whenua and what are the protections to stop Parliament from usurping property rights. Even the current debate over what is the best flag for this country, is symbolic of an interest in constitutional matters. But that debate has been constrained in this country by a general lack of knowledge of what our constitution actually is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EDuring the hearings on the Supreme Court Bill, Sir T\u012Bpene O\u2019Regan said that New Zealanders are constitutionally illiterate. I agree with that comment, but it is not surprising that that is the case, since there is no civics education in our schools. Most people in this country do not even know how legislation is enacted, never mind the roots of parliamentary, judicial, and executive \u201Clegitimacy\u201D. But people are capable of understanding those debates and forming opinions. The language of the debate may be unfamiliar to many people but it is not incomprehensible. So we need a proper process in this country to provide information to the public and to facilitate public discussion about this matter. The course of action that we are discussing in this motion is part of that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI remind the House that this specific proposal began as an agreement between the Green Party and the Government, made during our support for the Supreme Court Bill, and the terms of reference have largely been nutted out in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am pleased to see the Hon Peter Dunne is so enthusiastic about a Green Party idea, he wants to chair the committee. The Government needs to remember that it is the committee itself that will elect its chair. It is not for the Prime Minister to decide who the chair will be, despite attempts to put a conciliatory gloss on it. So what should this committee do? It is not for the committee to determine what our constitution should be. That is for the people of this country. But it is helpful to have a select committee lay out the sources of our constitution now. The point has been made that we can find it in Professor Philip Joseph\u2019s textbook and we can find it in the Cabinet Manual. That may be true, but what do those things mean? There are widely divergent views on this, and the recent debates between Dr Cullen and the Chief Justice indicate how divergent some of those views can be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI think it is right for this Parliament, at the start of the 21st century, to lay out its view of what it means\u2014its view of what those sources are, and how they work out in practice. There is no single view in this House, just as there is not in the wider community, but what we can do is lay out the parameters of that debate and the arguments for and against different positions. The other thing a select committee can usefully do is provide an accessible text, readable by lay people and accessible to the average New Zealander, that can lay out that information and thereby provide a basis for a much more informed discussion in the community. As the Green Party has often said in the past, that needs to be backed up at a more basic level with a commitment to civics education in our schools. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI was looking at the December issue of Law News and in it there is an article by Catriona McLennan about a paper by Professor Bruce Harris on the constitutional future of New Zealand, which was published in the New Zealand Law Journal. Professor Harris said that there is a lack of public knowledge about constitutional issues, that constitutional education in schools is inadequate, and that a prerequisite to any constitutional reform process must be an effective programme not only to meet the understanding deficit in the community but to increase enthusiasm about constitutional debate. This committee is an opportunity for Parliament to take a step in that direction. Professor Harris also makes a number of useful suggestions about how we might proceed to have a public discussion, and we should take note of those suggestions. Other people have made suggestions too, but they are just suggestions. We need to start to work towards a collective agreement about ways to proceed, and a commitment to make that happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe last role of the select committee is to look at the processes used to debate constitutional change in other countries and what processes we might use in this country, bearing in mind that we can learn from overseas countries but that we are unique in Aotearoa and have to develop processes specific to ourselves. That process is about public discussion. As I have already said, it is not for the select committee to determine whether and how we might change the constitution, but it is a proper role for a committee to determine how Parliament can facilitate a debate about whether we should change and how any such change should take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EAs I stated at the beginning of my speech, we are in an unusually fortunate position in this country in that this debate is happening not in revolution, not in war, not in violent confrontation, but in a peaceful, slow evolution. That is extremely important. This is part of our process of coming of age as a nation. I know I am privileged as a member of this Parliament to participate in this process, and I look forward to doing that on behalf of the Green Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u0022e61a4e9ce7be4ee488abe57ea586ffed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e61a4e9ce7be4ee488abe57ea586ffed\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E One of the good things about this debate is the consistency of the ignorance from the member who preceded me. I should tell him that this is not a Green Party idea. The Deputy Prime Minister and others will know that I have been advocating for a constitutional inquiry, at reasonably frequent intervals, since 1994.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a87a79dfd41452b8377b36cc25b74eb\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Very effectively, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252ad38c943df4810947b896743e4aa9a\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely; we now have it. I think it will be a very positive step forward. I want to take some time to deal with some of the issues that have been raised about what is actually intended. That Dr Cullen is a very conservative constitutional monarchist, and I am a cautious conservative republican\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4c32c7b3ef44d239df7a070becc951b\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Irish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6da1e405fb54b9e960920b5d10232d8\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and proud of that, too\u2014are quite irrelevant to the debate. What is relevant is the process that is being followed and the objectives of the exercise. If we look at the terms of reference we see very clearly that, contrary to Mr Brownlee\u2019s fears, this is a very cautious and very deliberate first step, and it may be an only step. Let me go through the process as I see it over a period of time, and I will pick up some of the points that Mr Jones made in this regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThis select committee inquiry is essentially to bring together all of the elements of the New Zealand constitution as we know them to be or discover them to be; to tease out their relevance, their relationships, and by implication their effectiveness; then, if a process of change is deemed desirable at some future point, to determine how that might occur. The committee then will make a report to the Parliament. The Government of the day will consider that report. I would imagine that if it accepts the recommendations we put forward, it would then move to establish, at a future point, something akin to the commission of inquiry that Mr Jones referred to. That might well have very specific terms of reference. I envisage that that process would take some years, as it should, and that at the point the commission of inquiry reports\u2014and I am relying here on the experience of the royal commission into the electoral system\u2014its recommendations would essentially be just that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThe Government at that point, and who knows what its form might be, would have to determine whether it wished to accept those recommendations, and how it might proceed to deal with them. It would seem to me that if we were, at that stage, looking at major constitutional change\u2014and that is a huge if\u2014then the only way realistically to proceed would be by way of endorsement at a binding public referendum. But that is a process\u2014if one even assumes its inevitability\u2014that is likely to take the best part of a decade from here. The steps we are taking by establishing this committee and this review process are very much preliminary groundwork. It does not prejudge an outcome; it does not even presume a specific outcome. It is a stocktake of what we have, what we assess its effectiveness, by implication, to be, and if we were to consider change, how we might go about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EBut I think it has one other important element. It seems to me that it will be an inevitable concomitant of this process that we engage in some form of public interaction. Firstly, I think it is important that New Zealanders as a whole get a chance to express a view on how they perceive the New Zealand constitution, and, secondly, it is important that the debate that has been lurking around for some time about nationhood, about constitutional arrangements, and about where we might go with diverse elements like flags, national days, and all those things that are not covered here or relevant here, gets a chance to be aired. I get a sense that New Zealand is at the point where it wants to discuss these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EOne of the things that arose from Dr Brash\u2019s \u014Crewa speech earlier this year\u2014if I can be permitted to use some imagery\u2014was a situation akin to the lifting of the lid off Pandora\u2019s box. Everything came out, flew around, and made a great deal of noise and unsightly presence, but there were no solutions as to how either the problems might be resolved or the things put back in the box. It seems to me that what people were actually saying was that, yes, it is fine to get everything out there, and it is fine to know what we perceive our problems to be, whether or not we agree with them, but we are really much more interested in a way forward. We are really much more interested in what it all means and how we take this country forward, and if that means we need to start to talk about our constitutional arrangements, their adequacy, and whether change is required, so be it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThis is a very deliberate, cautious first step. Some have said that it is not the right time. Frankly, there is never a right time. But I think that in this country, probably since the days of Norman Kirk\u2019s walk across the Waitangi marae in 1973 with the young M\u0101ori warrior, there has been a bubbling sense of that amorphous thing called New Zealand nationhood, and a willingness\u2014increasingly fostered by journalists and others\u2014to start to discuss it. This process is part of capturing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EIt is also part of doing the necessary review of the adequacy of what we have at the moment, in a deliberate and considered way. I get no sense, from the considerable amount of correspondence I have had since this matter has been in the public arena, that New Zealanders are keen to make rapid, unproven change. New Zealanders are certainly keen for a debate and to express a view. It may well be, as perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister implied, that their views will harden up once there is a change in the monarch in Britain. I do not get any sense that New Zealanders want to take any precipitate steps while Queen Elizabeth is on the throne. The future may be a different story, and if one looks at the genes in that family, one sees that that future may be a very long way off from being confronted. Most of us will be long into our dotage by the time the Queen shuffles off this mortal coil. So I do not think there is any great need for concern or a hurried response, but I think it is an appropriate time to start considering these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI want to pick up some comments made by Mr Hide\u2014he may have made them tonight, but he has certainly made them in correspondence with the Government\u2014about the range of issues that ought to be considered. I know that Mr Franks has expressed similar views, as well. I think that some of the matters relating to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, property rights, and associated matters are properly issues that ought to come on to the agenda here. I do not see this as being necessarily exclusive in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EMr Brownlee spoke about the Treaty of Waitangi, and he seemed to be postulating that it was an either/or situation\u2014we either have a constitutional environment where we take the treaty to be the absolute founding document from which everything flowed, or we ignore it altogether. If I heard him correctly, I thought that was the message he was proposing. The relevance of the treaty to this exercise is of some importance, but I personally do not believe that it is sufficiently relevant that it requires a specific term of reference. It is a feature and a part of the New Zealand constitution, but in some sense it is no greater than any other feature. I think that by making it a specific reference, we accord it a status that will simply ensure two things: first, that it will be given a status that is not warranted; and, secondly, that the division and the anger about it that Dr Brash referred to earlier, and that Mr Brownlee picked up tonight, will simply be fuelled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI want to make this final point. The committee, when it is established, will meet to elect its own chair. I am grateful for the indications of support from the Government for my nomination. In the event that it is successful, I give this pledge to the House: while my own personal views are well known and I do not shrink from them, I will not chair this committee in a way that demonstrates any bias at all. It is important that this be done properly, be done impartially, and be done fairly, because the outcome is one that all of us will have to live with, whatever our particular view, and that is completely as it should be in a process of this type. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf5b7d62fe3e4cb28f4d0578fdd38825\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf5b7d62fe3e4cb28f4d0578fdd38825\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E The last speech illustrates the whole difficulty of the process here. Essentially, what Mr Dunne was saying is that this matter has to be driven from the top down, that parliamentarians have to guide it and set the terms of reference. Apparently, they should ignore the big topic that has motivated this whole inquiry. Let us be honest about this: the Government would not be moving to set up the select committee but for the \u014Crewa speech earlier this year. I have to say to Mr Dunne that that, in many respects, is the central question about our identity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe reason I say that is I was involved in setting up the constitutional conference in the year 2000. I had extensive discussions with the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, the subsequent Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, and with various other people, including Colin James, who became the organiser. The conference was held in the Legislative Council Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c075781a8cc64fe8a6afb337735d3afa\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Was it a waste of time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228231437f9a01411081666befd730baf4\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was not a waste of time, actually. There was a large number of contributions, but the abiding theme that came out of it was the sense of division. Whilst Colin James certainly pulled together all those contributions, and the conference concluded with a tentative way forward, in fact the whole issue stalled. That was the reality. Mr Franks will well remember this. The whole issue stalled because of the central issue of what was the role of the treaty and whether this nation could ever find any sense of consensus on it. I guess the fact that nothing happened thereafter meant that people thought it was too dangerous, that it was too difficult to go close to, and that we should do nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThat was the Government\u2019s response. In the year 2000 the current Government had a choice. It could have funded the university centre to continue the dialogue and to have further conferences and discussions. I am sure that Dr Cullen will recall that the Government made a conscious decision not to do so. It must have made that conscious decision, because some eminent New Zealanders made these representations and the Government simply ignored them. After all, these kinds of discussions require a degree of central government funding. That is why the conference occurred in the first place. In fact, the Hon Tony Ryall provided $50,000 from his Ministry of Justice budget to help it take place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe current Government has not done any of that. For the last 5 years it has done nothing. However, when Dr Brash, at \u014Crewa, made a speech that changed the political landscape of the country, the Government suddenly felt the impulse and the necessity to have a constitutional select committee. It is all about defusing things. That is the Government\u2019s intention. I do not believe that the public will be fooled by that process. I do not believe that a select committee of this Parliament, as opposed to a process that is driven by a wider group of New Zealanders, will be successful. Mr Dunne has said that it will all take a lot time, the committee will just listen to things and make a report and so forth, and ultimately there would be a referendum if there was to be any change. And Mr Dunne has been quite honest about what his particular motivations are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe interesting speech made by Dr Cullen raised a particular point. As I understood it, he said he was a supporter of the current constitutional arrangements. He nailed his colours to the mast on that point. It seems to me that his views are different from those held by the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Government has an agenda. The high point of it, in the sense that it has been the most prominent move, was, clearly, the passage of the Supreme Court Act\u2014and I wonder to what extent the Government rues the day it introduced that particular issue. Clearly, it was a major step. The Government did not go and get public consent. It never put it to the people directly. I know that it was part of Labour\u2019s overall manifesto, but people vote on many things; I doubt whether the Supreme Court was uppermost in anyone\u2019s mind. That particular issue was never put to the people. It was a major constitutional change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWe could easily end up in a situation where the only thing left is, in a sense, the shadow of a monarchy. We could end up having a referendum that is intended to endorse, effectively, what has happened, instead of there being a proactive decision by the public to make an affirmative choice. New Zealanders could end up endorsing the reality of what has already happened. Why do I say that? I say it because, when I look at what the Government has done over the last several years, I see a series of measures that are small in themselves but are cumulatively quite significant\u2014incremental, creeping republicanism, in fact. I refer to measures like changes in the oath of allegiance for new citizens; the renaming of Queen\u2019s Counsel to Senior Counsel; and the change to the oath of allegiance for senior military officers\u2014it is no longer to the Crown but to the Government, and that is quite a significant change. We also have the removal of the portrait of the Queen, to be replaced by that of the Prime Minister, in our embassies\u2014though not, perhaps, our high commissions\u2014and the refusal to issue a Queen\u2019s golden jubilee medal in 2003, when Canada actually did so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo, collectively, the Government\u2014the Prime Minister at least, if not Dr Cullen\u2014clearly has an agenda. To be fair, the Prime Minister has been reasonably open about it. She does want New Zealand to be a republic; she actually says that. But, more significant, she has been taking a series of steps intended to get New Zealanders to the point where, when we have the referendum, the result will be a foregone conclusion. That seems to be the overall plan. We have to see, in a sense, the establishment of this select committee as part and parcel of the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThere are other ways to deal with the matter. I do recognise that there is a degree of interest in constitutional issues. Obviously I understand that; otherwise, I would hardly have been involved in setting up the conference in 2000. I suggest that the more appropriate path\u2014the path the Government should have taken\u2014was to develop the outcomes from the constitutional conference in 2000. That would have been much more obviously and transparently a process controlled, essentially, by the public, as opposed to the agenda-driven approach of a committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI acknowledge that Mr Dunne will try to chair the committee fairly; I accept that. Nevertheless, that is not the issue. The issue is twofold. Firstly, is this review a diversion? The answer is yes. Secondly, is it intended to be part of an overall agenda to advance the cause of republicanism, so that a referendum will simply be a confirmatory vote as opposed to a genuine choice? I believe that the answer to that is yes also. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that he believes in supporting the constitutional monarchy. I think that is, in reality, a minority view\u2014to be charitable\u2014in his own Government, because it is clearly not the Government\u2019s agenda.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EFor those two fundamental reasons\u2014firstly, it is a diversion; secondly, it is part of an overall agenda\u2014National finds that it cannot support this proposition. Moreover, the terms of reference simply do not address the central issue so eloquently addressed by Dr Brash earlier this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u00223a5e905d8d6d4cc091271073c4294d2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a5e905d8d6d4cc091271073c4294d2d\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to pick up on a point that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp made in respect of the constitutional conference. I think the one thing that came out of the constitutional conference in the Legislative Council Chamber was the fact that there is no desire amongst the people of New Zealand for the sort of constitutional change that this cabal known as a select committee will be discussing. As I travel around the country, no one asks me about the constitution. No one asks me about the role of the monarchy. No one asks me about the matters that this select committee will look at. People do ask me about more incentives to work hard. They do ask me about more police. They do ask me about less red tape in the community\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cda3a51d56c741988b07a4d54789609e\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: You love being wrapped up in it, with red bows!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc5279f4876f4e20bbd6bf9fd6c30bef\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: And they do ask me when we will have a Minister of Education who does not have a speech impediment; maybe we will have that next Monday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe key issue to be discussed in this review is race relations. That issue will not be solved by members of the select committee trying to say it is not important. Middle New Zealand will not be denied, in respect of changing the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, in the way that the Government thinks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EJust in the last few days, we have seen how the separatist views of the Government and the senior public service have impacted on M\u0101ori. Mr Hemop\u014D from the Hawke\u2019s Bay has been here in Wellington arguing the case that the Government\u2019s view of the role of M\u0101ori and of the treaty is such that M\u0101ori are given extra points that keep them in jail longer. One standard of citizenship cuts both ways. Why would a Government have a policy that says: \u201CBecause you\u2019re M\u0101ori and you answer a certain way, you will get extra points to stay longer in jail.\u201D? That is the sort of political nonsense the people of New Zealand want expunged from the public service. We want the removal of\u2014[Interruption] Dr Cullen says he wants that; he does not. Mr Hemop\u014D is saying that he wants that separatism removed from the law, so that M\u0101ori are not automatically assumed to be violent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c85fef8ad964827ab4b249fc9f1740f\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, come on!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279e3f7ed779f491bbb858f0818e1105e\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is what the Department of Corrections says. \u201CMight be minth pie time.\u201D\u2014is that what the Minister is saying? I say to the Minister of Education: \u201CThe fact ith thith.\u201D We are saying that middle New Zealand will not be denied in respect of its desire to remove the treaty from the fundamental tenets of Government in New Zealand. Government in New Zealand should be built on fairness, equity, and treating New Zealanders the same regardless of their race. The Government is forcing on the public an agenda that is heading towards an inevitability that this country will have radical constitutional change that the people do not want. New Zealanders do not want this. New Zealanders do not want to sack the Queen. New Zealanders do not want to have the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in our constitution any further than it is at the moment. What the \u014Crewa speech showed is that middle New Zealand has had enough. The Government will not be able to fix that with some silly committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022304eadf3fea2418983913cea4529ad7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022304eadf3fea2418983913cea4529ad7f\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the National and Labour whips have been talking about the issue\u2014and I have also been involved in the discussion\u2014of anticipating a closure motion on a debate that, technically, is not limited. When the debate is not limited, it is deliberately like that in our Standing Orders. We recognise that the Government can move and carry a closure motion, but on an issue like this I think it is improper not to allow a different sort of debate from the normal introduction debate, which runs ritually backwards and forwards. I know that Mr Smith wants to have another call. I certainly would like to have 10 minutes. I do not think this is a debate where the Speaker should be bound by arrangements that are reached between whips.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8f7432fa2534454a0f5119a87338b25\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: There was an arrangement, and Mr Franks was part of that arrangement. Now he wants to change that arrangement, yet the Government on the standard tariff could have moved the closure before Mr Ryall\u2019s speech. But if the member insists on speaking for 10 minutes we cannot stop him, since this is not a speech that is being split between members of one party. I simply note that in this House when arrangements are arrived at they are stuck to for a pretty good reason, which is that eventually life goes around in this place over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd0bcfb7e6a346c783907ea14170f071\u0022\u003ELindsay Tisch\u003C/span\u003E: National did seek to have a third call. That was not going to happen. I looked to negotiate with ACT to be able to split the call. I negotiated with the Government to be able to take one 10-minute call split between the two of us\u2014National and ACT\u2014and that was certainly my understanding. That is National\u2019s position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4cbce121ac2474d98b25b743df05ffb\u0022\u003EMurray Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I understand that there may have been discussion between the whips in Labour and National. To my knowledge, there has been no communication with United Future\u2019s whip. I certainly want to take a call tonight on this matter, because of its importance. I do not think it is right that the minor parties should be bound in this instance by discussions between only two parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223048bf956fe9429eb06d3e763c4e5e58\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I assure the member that the Speaker cannot be bound by any arrangement like that. A call can only be split between members of the same party. In fact, this is a 10-minute call, because no closure motion has been moved to date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265b4c18223c04fc8ae80d814b0e91fb2\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to reassure Mr Tisch that I was not taking issue with the arrangement that Labour and National had reached, nor would I have done so except that I knew the United Future member was seeking a call, as well. I thought that perhaps the Labour Party whip was not aware of that when considering the closure motion. It would have been awkward to have had a 5-minute speech when there might have been a 10-minute speech if the Government is, in fact, not able to get the closure motion through. I wanted to draw attention to that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6f8e01ca84640328c26e24cc4aeaf8b\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Speaker is not involved in this matter. It is Mr Stephen Frank\u2019s call. I have called him properly, and it is his call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c47598cd6b24ac88b7aa117ef57baee\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222baca6d46c594033aa1242ac4263e1ec\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have ruled on that point of order. Is this a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022368ddc7fb15b4e4ca4153eee4770eb48\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. What I do not understand is why you thought that there could be a 5-minute call, because my understanding is that members can only share a call with someone of the same party. So I do not understand how the Speaker could have decided that there would be a 5-minute call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227938659217614c0ab2f6f4d578858bf2\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If the member had listened, he would have heard me say that I was not party to that, at all. Tony Ryall took his call, and that was his call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u00226d90b85c5e5e484ab4ac3e3db15675ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d90b85c5e5e484ab4ac3e3db15675ec\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The terms of reference that have been put in the motion describe a job that would ordinarily be done by officials or academics, or be published in a Government background paper. I believe that this committee was originally conceived as an exercise to take awkward issues safely past the next election. The only forward-looking instruction in the terms of reference is directed safely away from home\u2014to review other countries\u2019 processes for constitutional change. Nevertheless, we join in this, knowing that we could be part of a tactic to give credibility to a diversionary manoeuvre. But I believe that the committee can make it much more, and if it becomes clear that we are wasting our time, ACT will not continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThere are plenty of issues to raise. Over the past 20 years there have been distortions in a number of our institutions by what essentially has been an elite consensus. Some of it has been calculated hypocrisy\u2014just political opportunism and deception\u2014but not necessarily ill meant. It has been well-meaning arrogance in a view that the end justifies the means, by historians, by people outside the political process, by the judiciary, and by many who mistrust and patronise ordinary people. But on a constitutional matter there are really only three hard issues: firstly, how to minimise conflict over succession and leadership without insulating leaders from the boot when they deserve it; secondly, who has the power to ensure that the rules about succession are followed; and, thirdly, who watches those watchers. Our judiciary has been watching the rules from the sidelines because our conventions have been so strong, but those conventions have been modified, and I believe that this committee can describe not just what they ought to look like but the way that they are actually operating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIn essence, deciding who watches the watchers has been the hardest issue for most countries, and the easiest for us when the watcher was the Privy Council. When judges could only interpret or apply existing law, which was laid down by elected representatives, the risk of the judges getting out of their station was low. But now we have considerable tension in this area. I believe that the Hon Michael Cullen made a thoughtful and useful contribution when he moved the motion. He has been watching closely. He has moved considerably since his speech to the Labour Party in Gisborne when he essentially told us there is a separate status for M\u0101ori\u2014\u201CEat that!\u201D. I think he wants to see this committee deal with some of these issues in a way that is very difficult for a governing party to do on its own. We have a Chief Justice who only last month told the International Bar Association conference that in constitutional law even Parliament was not sovereign. It appears that these judicial supremacists, as Lord Cooke identified them, are confident that they are on a roll.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWell, these are the matters that this committee can look at. But they are too large and I do not think we will see solutions. What we must report on are the many minor changes; the things that have happened that have evolved our constitution without any significant public debate, such as the absence from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of protection for property rights, and an interpretation of the \u201Cliving document\u201D treaty that has actually buried the only really substantial property protection for New Zealanders in it. The Chief Justice, at that same conference, gently mocked property rights as a focus of a Victorian bill of rights. We have provisions reserving appointments for M\u0101ori and giving trump status, under the Resource Management Act, for example, to M\u0101ori spirituality. Where is our separation of Church and State in that position? There is a transfer of political decision-making to judges through the calculated use in law of undefined terms that Parliament has deliberately left in the law. We did it last week when kaitiakitanga was given no definition and was left for the judges to flesh out. Then there will be criticism of the judges for being inventive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI refer, also, to the powers of general competence of local authorities. I hope the committee will revisit the changes made only 2 years ago when we turned on their heads rules that had underpinned liberty for hundreds of years. The liberties of individuals are protected only when local rulers cannot use coercive powers for anything they have a bright idea about. Then there are the spurious partnership obligations that Mr Hide talked about, and the loss of open courts\u2014we have courts that are closed and where justice can never be seen to be done, because of blanket secrecy. In the court area again, de facto sentencing power has gone to the Parole Board instead of to judges. The judges are involved in just a charade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EBut I do not think this committee should think that its task is to prepare the ground for a written constitution. In the absence of some strong external threat or exhaustion after civil strife, a constitution drafting exercise will just be a scramble for political advantage. Ordinary New Zealanders will not have the endurance to outlast the political junkies, and the ordinary people have better things to do with their time. So I believe that this committee would be best served if it looked at a few incremental things that it can fix, and some protections it can put into our arrangements to prevent the sort of mudslide of new law that we have had over the last 20 years, and the surrender of political control of speech to the media establishment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI also hope it will come back and put a nail through the heart of the \u201Cliving document\u201D treaty. Dr Cullen, Ms Wilson, and Ms Clark still seem to think that there is a \u201Cliving document\u201D somewhere. It seems to be some sort of deity. Maybe Dr Cullen is no longer a believer. We think this committee can help put a stake through its heart, so that it becomes a genuine document once more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002281d6dbe15b6c42c0860feca6dd56f0f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281d6dbe15b6c42c0860feca6dd56f0f2\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bb256152f24c4787a5cee3341268c05b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000868\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that the following amendment in the name of Gerry Brownlee be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000869\u0022\u003Eto omit all the words after the words \u201Cconstitutional arrangements\u201D and substitute the words \u201Cand the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in contemporary New Zealand; the committee to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, New Zealand National 3, New Zealand First 1, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, and United Future 1.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222c495c30a5c54fbfb4bcee50fc15af6a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 32\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eec6dd64ee6d4d67ac4d1531c8bbf509\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 78\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 37\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022451dcede835340d794e433449781eca2\u0022\u003E Overseas Investment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ab3961e372824341aaf87be372c9bbb1\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9d94724af06453ba4bd3d3cb8787ea8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9d94724af06453ba4bd3d3cb8787ea8\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Overseas Investment Bill be now read a first time. I intend that the bill should be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. The bill proposes the most significant changes to the way New Zealand regulates overseas investment in more than 30 years. On 10 November last year I announced a review of the existing Overseas Investment Act. That Act, of course, is now some 30-odd years old. The review had two purposes. First, to ensure that New Zealand\u2019s approach to the regulation of foreign investment focuses on those assets that really matter to New Zealanders. They include sensitive land, fisheries, and assets with historical or cultural significance. Second, we wanted to ensure that potential overseas investors did not face unnecessary compliance costs and that foreign investment that can make a positive contribution to the economy and to New Zealand is encouraged. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI guess those criteria, with the current way New Zealand regulates overseas investment, have some shortcomings. Some overseas business investors are subject to unnecessary compliance costs. On the other hand, some investors who want to buy land are required to pass a test that is based only on economic development and ignores other important factors, such as heritage value and access to sensitive land by New Zealand people. Further, the plans submitted by investors to support purchase consents cannot be adequately enforced. In practice, it is often impossible to ensure that they are completed to a reasonable standard or for the courts to impose adequate penalties in the event of a breach. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill addresses those problems through a number of provisions. In relation to land investments, a proposed purchase to the unimproved value of more than $10 million will no longer be screened where it is not screened for any other reason. This change is expected to affect only land sales in the main centres\u2019 central business districts, and is designed to stop purchasers of small parcels of central city land that is not sensitive from incurring unnecessary compliance costs. The criteria for land purchases will be extended to include any of economic development, natural heritage, historic heritage, or walking access, and the appropriate weighting of those criteria for any given purchase will be determined by Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EPurchasers will be required to submit management plans to take account of the criteria that have been specified, and compliance with those plans will be made conditions of consent. So, for example, where a purchaser is required to develop walking access for the public as part of a consent to purchase, and fails to meet that condition, the purchaser will face penalties that could ultimately include being required to dispose of the land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ELand adjoining some non-sensitive reserves will be dropped from screening. The most important of those will be drainage reserves within urban areas. This change is designed to ensure that the regulator focuses on those land purchases that are genuinely sensitive, as opposed to most of the ones that I looked at, which were around urban subdivisions adjoining drainage reserves and similar areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe threshold for screening non-land business assets will be increased from $50 million to $100 million. That threshold was last adjusted in 1999, when it was increased from $10 million to $50 million. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EOwnership of and access to the foreshore and seabed is an important issue for most New Zealanders\u2014as we have recently been seeing. The bill provides that the Crown will have a new right of first refusal where land includes foreshore and seabed, and where such land would otherwise be sold into foreign ownership. The requirements on landholders who would need to comply with that new provision will be set out in regulations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill sets out what is regarded as sensitive land caught under the new regulatory regime. This includes land adjoining the foreshore or land that adjoins any lakes. It also includes lands over 0.2 hectares on specified islands and any land on other islands. It includes land over 0.4 of a hectare that includes or adjoins conservation land; land that is provided as reserves or public parks; land that adjoins land that makes up the Queen\u2019s Chain; land that adjoins scientific, scenic, historic, or nature reserves over 0.4 hectares administered by the Department of Conservation; land that is subject to heritage orders or land that adjoins such land; land that is a historic place, w\u0101hi tapu, or w\u0101hi tapu area, or land that adjoins such land; or land that adjoins sensitive reserves. Any land over 5 hectares that is not urban land is also covered by the proposed regime. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EFinally, if a proposed overseas investor is seeking to purchase farmland, that land must first have been offered for sale on the local open market, as provided for under the current Act. The rule makes no changes to the existing policy that investments in fisheries by overseas persons require consent. However, the onus for obtaining consent when an overseas person wants to buy a stake of more than 25 percent in fishing quota will now rest with the overseas investor rather than the fishing company, as the rules apply now. That brings it into line with the general rules around sensitive purchases. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI now turn to the new enforcement provisions in the bill. The bill responds to previous concerns that the ex post monitoring enforcement of consents was not robust enough and lacked the necessary disincentives. The onus for monitoring conditions of consent will be on the overseas person, who will be required to file statutory declarations to attest to ongoing compliance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill provides greater flexibility for enforcing non-compliance through a series of progressively stronger penalties. Administrative penalties for late filing of statutory declarations have been introduced, as has a new category of civil penalties, which can be used to penalise people who profit from breaching conditions or cause loss to others by breaching conditions. Continued failure to comply with consent criteria could result in court orders to comply with consents, fines, or civil penalties, or ultimately to the court ordering disposal of the land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EFor serious offences against the regime, individuals could be able to be imprisoned for 12 months, and maximum fines have been significantly increased to $300,000. The courts will be able to order that a mortgage be registered against any land of a consent holder to secure payment of fines and penalties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI believe that this bill will better serve the interests of New Zealanders than the current rules. It will ensure that overseas investors who seek to acquire sensitive New Zealand assets comply with purchase conditions that advance New Zealand\u2019s interests. Failure to comply with those conditions will result in real sanctions. At the same time the bill seeks to remove unnecessary impediments to overseas investment where the assets being acquired are not particularly sensitive. I am confident the bill balances the need to protect sensitive New Zealand assets, while recognising that overseas investment makes a positive contribution to the economy. It is with much pleasure, therefore, that I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8d4aba94de143af939441232e357f41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8d4aba94de143af939441232e357f41\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E National will support this bill to the select committee, but will be watching the submissions carefully and reserving its position for the future. Sadly, overseas investment invokes some of the worst sentiments in some of our people and some of our political parties. Xenophobia, which is the intense dislike of foreigners and foreign investment, has no place at all in this modern world. I think that people like Winston Peters who trot out this xenophobic attitude, time and time again for the polls, does himself a huge disservice, and he does huge disservice to the recognition of foreign investment and its importance to our economy. I do not believe he genuinely believes in it, but he uses the election cycle, and every 3 years out comes the same message that is simply promoting fear and hatred, but only for the purpose of collecting votes. New Zealand needs foreign investment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224240c117a5ac470ab16db79dafb48b28\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022181d22d5119f4adba69f592229b95e41\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: If Rod Donald had bothered to study the history of this country, even he would realise that it was founded totally on foreign investment. As long as New Zealanders remain relatively poor at saving for themselves, then we will continue to rely on foreign capital being invested in this country. Therefore, any rules must not be so tough as to turn overseas investors away from this country. Other countries also seek foreign capital and if their rules are grossly easier than ours, then the investor has the chance to go somewhere else, and that would not be good for our economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis legislation appears to be a reasonable attempt to allow small, inconsequential investment to occur without hassle, and if that is what is achieved by this legislation, then I congratulate the Government on that. At the same time, this legislation appears to recognise that some sensitive land\u2014and by that I mean sensitive to New Zealand because of its iconic nature\u2014will need to meet a higher threshold. Again, I agree with that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EWe need also to acknowledge the abuse that has occurred in the past in the Overseas Investment Commission process. I am certainly unaware of any case at all where action has subsequently been taken against a foreign investor. I recall land being purchased by Bill Lloyd of Sovereign Yachts\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3283d611ddb405e811b669d1d450986\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: That went well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4c556d9fc514b05aa3057b89d97a875\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Well it did not go too well, in fact. This man promised what I believe Lianne Dalziel is on the record as saying in this House, that he would create a business to give 600 jobs somewhere in Auckland. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243245df5ae3041738ae0c37a59b662a7\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: I think Jim Anderton had something to do with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fda03356b934e3e93fd2224b493fae1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. Brian Connell reminds me that the man then befriended Jim Anderton. Not only did Jim Anderton see that this man got tens of thousands of dollars of corporate welfare from the taxpayer, but also Jim Anderton ensured that he had the ability to buy some surplus Crown land in Auckland, at a price grossly below market value.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ESo this man had to seek overseas investment approval. When I look at the rules that applied at the time, the first test Mr Bill Lloyd had to pass was that he had to demonstrate, as they called it, \u201Cbusiness acumen\u201D. Well, as many of the political parties on this side of the House subsequently revealed, this man had had a very chequered career in North America. He certainly had not demonstrated any business acumen in those countries at all. His track record in New Zealand is equally disastrous. I am not sure, but at the last count he may have employed five or 10 people. He may have built one boat, not the hundreds that he promised. So I say that if the overseas investment legislation sets rules and thresholds, it is vital that they be met in the approval of foreign investors to New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe next clause I want to bring to the attention of the House in this debate today is clause 18(2)(d): \u201Cthere are or will be adequate mechanisms in place for walking access over the relevant land \u2026\u201D. The reason I raise this is that this is the first indication of any of Mr Jim Sutton\u2019s public access legislation being advanced. It is the first indication of a move towards a freedom to wander at will over private land. We know that the legislation has been sitting on the Minister of Agriculture\u2019s desk since March. We know that he is too nervous and scared to move that legislation. We know that this man, at least until next Monday, has been the farmers\u2019 representative around the Cabinet table, and he has been a disaster in that role. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EOnly this week we revealed that Accident Compensation Corporation premiums had leapt another 30 percent for farmers. As Dover Samuels knows, that decision was passed by the Cabinet table, and Jim Sutton sat at that Cabinet table as the Minister of Agriculture and failed to represent the farmers. If this is the first step of developing public access legislation, then Mr Sutton should front up, as he promised, with the balance of the legislation before Christmas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe last point I want to make is around the weakness of some of the rules already in existence with overseas investment legislation. One of the rules I know of, which was introduced at the insistence of Winston Peters himself, was the necessity for any farmland that was to be offered for sale to be publicly advertised so everybody knew that it was on the market. I happen to know of a farm in Conway Hills in North Canterbury that has been sold by a New Zealander to an overseas company. The deal is stitched up and done, and it was only subsequent to the deal being stitched that the owners realised that they had to advertise it publicly. We then had a tiny little advertisement appearing in the public notices. So technically the law has been satisfied, but farmers who are looking to buy land in New Zealand do not look at a small advertisement in the public notices column of the Christchurch Press. They look in the farms for sale column. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI raise that because the more rules that are set for overseas investment in this country, then the more inventive and imaginative the solicitors will be in trying to circumvent those rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI finish where I started. Capital is a scarce resource in this country. Capital is a scarce resource in this world. If New Zealand wants to progress and prosper, we must attract foreign investment to this country. If we establish rules that make it simply too hard for investment in New Zealand, then we will be setting rules that will be the poorer for this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u0022505bdd0654c542869e83c19eb420474f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022505bdd0654c542869e83c19eb420474f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022271ae55abd6e476b970c7eabdcd4c8e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022271ae55abd6e476b970c7eabdcd4c8e7\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E The purpose of this bill is supposedly to introduce changes to the way in which overseas investment is regulated in New Zealand. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill being referred to a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EIf the bill passes its first reading, which it probably will, it will be interesting to listen to submitters and hear evidence from officials on this very important legislation. The reason I say this bill is such important legislation is that this Government should have no choice but to get it right. However, the sad fact is that the Government has got this one wrong on a huge scale. The bill\u2019s implications will hurt this nation in a devastating way, in the same way as we saw in the mid-1980s and the 1990s with the sell-off of New Zealand assets by the Labour and National Governments of the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EMembers just need to look at the bill. They do not have to look very far to find what I am saying to be true. For example, the threshold for overseas ownership will be increased from $50 million to $100 million. Mr David Carter from the National Party said that that amount was small. He said that $100 million was a small amount. I say it is a very large amount, New Zealand First says it is a very large amount, and the average New Zealander would say it was a very large amount.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EAlso, for example, the explanatory note states: \u201CPurchase of land by overseas person with an unimproved value of more than $10 million will no longer require consent where the land is not screened for other reasons.\u201D From just reading those two examples, and there are a few more examples as well, we find that this bill takes us back to the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990, which sold New Zealand Steel, Petrocorp, Health Computing Services, the Development Finance Corporation, Postbank\u2014remember that\u2014the Shipping Corporation, Air New Zealand, Landcorp Financial Instruments, the Rural Bank\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd7b05793bc7499f9b9135269c54c0f2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Could the member come to the bill, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022398703f24b8140939884aa4abe346768\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked me to come back to the bill. I am speaking directly to the bill, because this bill obviously concerns overseas ownership. That is what I am talking about as far as the sell-up of assets\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022135bec5a68d244948aa501644d3038ce\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Come back to this bill, and do not dwell on the 1980s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c64917f70f24d2d8db398ddabd7c84b\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5fb5806b919443abf6b4c7086b02c7d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is all coming off the member\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220928852f11e444319053f8a7741fc646\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand First is saying that this bill is all about the sale of New Zealand assets, and we are giving examples of how the Labour Government has done that in the past, and the National Government has done that in the past. These are just examples, and we will come back to the bill in the ordinary way. I am disappointed that you should have interrupted that member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c13d53baaada49d6a5f1c594d87b3277\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry. Perhaps I was a little hasty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bdd196e58d34907a5aac875a86f5519\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for being open to our comments in that regard. Before I was interrupted I was telling the House about a long list of companies and State-owned enterprises that the Labour Government sold off back in the 1980s. I referred directly back to this bill, because that is what this bill does; it opens the country up to being flogged off once again into foreign ownership. That is what the bill is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EWe saw that the Labour Government is still holding on to its past when, for example, it passed the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill this week\u2014we just finished speaking on it today. That legislation gives certain non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies, and that will disadvantage New Zealand - resident venture capital investors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EIf we look at the National Government\u2019s list of sell-offs, we see it is almost as bad as Labour\u2019s. Between 1990 and 1996 the total\u2014[Interruption] He left the National Party during that time because it broke every promise in the book. I remember 1990. I was a young fellow, 14 years of age. I remember flicking on the television and seeing Mr Bolger, the leader of the National Party at the time, say basically: \u201CRead my lips.\u201D He said that there were hardly any more State-owned assets to sell. The Labour Government had pretty much sold all of them. This bill brings in some more; it brings us back to those old days. That is why I have mentioned the Labour Government\u2019s track record and the National Government\u2019s track record. They refer directly to this bill. Jim Bolger said that, and that is what this bill will do. This Government is going back to its past. It has not changed its heart, and it shows us that by this very bill, which increases the threshold for overseas ownership from $50 million to $100 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271fae7244b054c9ca4ffb824a2cbbf81\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: How much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a2448ec13664409a2cdac86aee812ed\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Fifty million to $100 million, and that M\u0101ori member is voting for it. He is allowing foreign investors to come into this country, and they will take their profits back to the country they came from. That money will not go to New Zealanders. A Labour Government is supposed to stand for that; that is what I thought it was supposed to stand for, and it is not standing for it. As Rob Muldoon used to say: \u201CI know what I stand for but I\u2019m not going to stand for it.\u201D That is what the Labour Government is doing. It is not standing for it. It is not standing for what the people who voted for it thought it would stand for, and that is an absolute disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThe amazing thing about this bill is hearing the National Opposition speaker talk on it. He was almost reminiscing about the old days and how great the economic experiment was\u2014selling off $6.36 billion of State-owned assets. That is what the National Government did. It sold off $6.36 billion of State-owned assets after the Labour Government had sold off $10.1 billion of State-owned assets. That is when the National Party said that there were no more State-owned assets to sell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThat is what this bill does. It takes us back to the past, back to what the National Party members\u2014in particular, Mr Carter, who spoke just before me\u2014and the Labour Party members, including Helen Clark, the current Prime Minister, and Dr Cullen, were a part of in what they call the good old days. That is what they call it, and that is what they want to go back to. Basically, they will sell these assets to foreign-owned companies for a song, and let them take the profits back to the overseas countries they came from. New Zealand First opposes that in its entirety. We say it is disgraceful, repugnant, and wrong, because New Zealanders own those assets and the money should come back to New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u002230c889220250471da07bdcfb2c34c8bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002230c889220250471da07bdcfb2c34c8bc\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I thank my colleague from ACT, Richard Prebble, for letting me have a call before him. I am looking forward to his endorsing what I have to say, in the same way that I am pleased to endorse much of what Craig McNair just had to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt was fantastic to hear an angry young man state the obvious, which is that his predecessors in this Parliament sold off the family silver. It was not just one Government but two Governments that sold it; it was not just the Labour Government in all its new-right zeal that did that but also the National Government that followed it. I guess the only silver lining in that extraordinary sell-off of New Zealand\u2019s State assets is that we now have MMP as a result. Due to those two old parties going against everything that the New Zealand electorate had expected of them, the public knew that it would not be good enough just to throw one lot out, because when the other lot came in it would be just as bad, if not worse. That is why the public changed the electoral system instead of the Government, and that is why we have some independent voices in this Parliament. We do not always agree with each other, but on this occasion I am pleased to say that the Green Party does empathise quite extensively with what the New Zealand First speaker just said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EAnd that, to respond to David Carter\u2019s earlier speech, is not a position of xenophobia. It is not that the Greens have anything against foreign individuals moving to New Zealand and making our country their home. We are not even against foreign corporations making greenfield investments in New Zealand. It is about placing some appropriate restrictions on foreign investors, and even the Minister of Finance admits in his general policy statement that \u201C\u2026 it is a privilege for overseas persons to own sensitive New Zealand assets,\u201D. The problem with this bill is that Dr Cullen has narrowed what he considers to be sensitive assets, and that is our fundamental criticism with this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIn effect, what Dr Cullen has done is pull a massive swifty on the people of New Zealand. This bill is a complete and utter sham, and he is not going to get away with it. The public is wise to what is going on, and I can give members evidence of their wisdom in the fact that in the last few weeks I have received over 1,500 signatures to the petition I launched only this time last month opposing the expansion of foreign investment in, and foreign control of, the New Zealand economy. The reason why signatures to that petition are flooding in is that people recognise what this Labour Government is trying to do. In its very stealthy way, it is claiming to be saving the facade\u2014in other words, so-called sensitive iconic sites\u2014at the same time as it is making it easier to sell off the building and the businesses behind the facade. That is what this bill does. It offers some protection to so-called iconic sites of historical, cultural, or environmental interest, and we applaud that, because we want greater protection from overseas ownership of those sites, but it also so-called liberalises the foreign investment regime to make it even easier for foreign investors to gobble up the rest of the private assets that are on the block.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand First speaker suggested there would be more State assets available for sale. I have to give Labour credit that it has no intention of selling any more, and the profitable ones, I tell Mr McNair, have already gone to overseas owners. This bill is all about making it easier to asset-strip the private sector in this country, and that is why we oppose this bill and why we will be putting up significant amendments to it. We see foreign investors as guests, and we believe that guests need to follow the rules of their hosts. In our case, those rules should mean no more land sales to foreign corporations and non-resident foreigners\u2014absolutely, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. Land has got to be off the table. Already, too much of New Zealand\u2019s land has fallen into foreign control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt is difficult to know how much, because the Government simply does not collect statistics on it. We can hazard a guess that approximately 7 percent of our commercially productive land, or more than 1 million hectares, is now in foreign ownership. We know from the Government figures that are available that in just the last few years 2,720 hectares of offshore islands, 57 kilometres of coastline, and 150,000 hectares of high-country leasehold land have been sold to overseas buyers. But that is just the tip of the foreign ownership iceberg, because most residential and commercial land sales under $10 million are not scrutinised or recorded now. With that threshold increasing to $100 million, not only will the sell-off intensify but it will be more difficult to identify which parcels of land have fallen into foreign control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThis bill is a complete contradiction of the recommendations made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee only a couple of years ago. That committee, in a review of the Reserve Bank for the 1999-2000 year, made a number of significant recommendations. Those recommendations were joint recommendations, as in being Labour Government and Greens recommendations. They included appointing an additional commissioner to represent the wider community on the Overseas Investment Commission, extending the application of the national interest criteria to all proposals, not just to land sales, and re-examining the investment thresholds. Our preference was to reduce them from the $50 million that Mr Bolger had brought in, back down to the pre-election level of $10 million, and therefore we are certainly opposed to increasing them to $100 million. We also wanted the commission to consider the impact on social well-being, environmental sustainability, and economic sovereignty, when assessing whether an investment will benefit New Zealand, and we wanted a code of corporate responsibility for investors, because they need to measure up to that\u2014otherwise, there is no point in having a compliance regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EQuite frankly, there is no point in having the compliance regime in this bill, because it is a self-regulating one, and who will say no when asked whether he or she has complied? There needs to be some independent compliance monitoring, and, yes, it should not be at the cost of the taxpayer, but, no, it should not be undertaken by the applicant. It should be paid for by the applicant, but it needs to be done independently. That is one of the many flaws in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EAnother flaw is getting rid of the Overseas Investment Commission. Stephen Dawe, who heads that commission, will tell members that the Greens have many criticisms of how it operates, and one particular example recently was the Shania Twain sale, but that is not a reason for getting rid of it. The problem is that that was a pre-determined outcome. There was no first-principles review of the Overseas Investment Commission. The Government knew all along what its intention was, and that was to make it even easier for foreign investors to gobble up more of our assets. It was not interested in addressing issues around the lack of compliance. It was not interested in addressing issues around the fact that there have been a lot of retrospective approvals. It is not interested in facing up to the big issues, which are that at the end of June foreign investment in New Zealand totalled $190 billion\u2014up more than $8 billion on the previous year\u2014and that that investment is costing us enormously. For the year ended June, there was $9.488 billion in interest payments and profits on those loans and shareholdings. That is what foreign investment is costing New Zealand. It is costing us an increasing balance of payments deficit. It is causing the price of land to increase so that it is becoming nearly impossible for young Kiwi families to buy a farm or ever have the opportunity of buying a bach at the beach. It is making it more difficult for first-home buyers to buy their first home, because residential property is being bought up by overseas investors who can get it at a very cheap price and make a very good return on their capital.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ESo we ask the public to please make a submission on this bill and tell this Government that it has got it wrong. The fact that National supports the bill is a very good reason why everyone in this country should be concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7e74ec06bf840568f3e04de7d0dc9e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7e74ec06bf840568f3e04de7d0dc9e4\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we will also oppose the Overseas Investment Bill, but for completely opposite reasons to the Green Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022059616faf4524f369a53dd7beb7bdce6\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: I thought so. Predictable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d850977935b74f6a85f2331ff0ee67b3\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: It is a shame that it is predictable, because Mr Donald, though he tries to hide it, has a better intellect than was showed by the speech he gave to the House. He was talking emotional claptrap. The idea that foreigners are buying up homes in \u014Ctara, pushing up the price of homes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226379867594a74ec6970eb05878b18948\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Wainui\u014Dmata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da7bca8be1394183a70a39a93a06a940\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014or in Wainui\u014Dmata\u2014and making it impossible for young New Zealanders to go there, is absurd. If he listened to his own rhetoric about the amount of overseas investment in New Zealand, he would know that it is still tiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIf he had bothered to study history when he was at school, he would realise that this nation was built on overseas investment. If one goes back far enough, one can see that nearly every economic activity in New Zealand was done by foreigners. If we look at New Zealand\u2019s economic growth at the time when there were no rules at all against overseas investment, we see that we have never matched that growth since\u2014never, never matched it. Indeed, according to research done by Geoffrey Blainey, who is, as I am sure the New Zealand First member knows, probably Australia\u2019s most prominent historian, it is his belief that in 1900 New Zealand had the highest standard of living in the world\u2014and that was at a point when we had no overseas investment rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThese rules are nonsense. Let me give one other, small example. The explanatory note includes \u201Cinvestments\u201D that are \u201Csensitive\u201D, and \u201Csensitive assets\u201D. When one reads through it, one finds out that those refer to land, but the proposal actually increases the \u201Cthreshold for screening non-land business assets\u201D whereby overseas people can buy from a company to $100 million. I hate to be the first to break it to the Government, but that means people can go and buy a company on the New Zealand Stock Exchange for $99 million\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022603d20749d1448108f498989e9d2a2d8\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Lots of them!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9da8691e7f34730ace5fb24290241aa\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014one could buy quite a lot on the New Zealand Stock Exchange for $99 million\u2014and the next day deregister it and put it on to the Singapore Stock Exchange\u2014which has happened to a few public companies. That is possible. But the \u201Csensitive\u201D investment is land, and no one has worked out how that can be picked up and put into Singapore. No foreigner has ever managed to acquire a piece of New Zealand land or foreshore\u2014perhaps a little bit of sand, but not a proper section\u2014and take it overseas. It cannot be done. That is a load of rubbish, and when we hear the stuff about some singer who has bought some land\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2fc32b1de75462d82459c72de931ab3\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: Shania Twain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e09dd81981244775955a95e1976304f8\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Apparently she is a pop singer or something, so I am told\u2014[Interruption] Well, jolly good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c03400c630154e1aa8cbc7ddf91e77ed\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: She\u2019s very good-looking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225595f1567b1b494cac6d8886e7629774\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I have various strengths but that is not one of them\u2014but I can guarantee that that land is still there, and I suspect she is probably a better landowner than many Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI listened to Mr Rod Donald and to the New Zealand First member talking about overseas investors, and heard that they have a dreadful impression of some sort of robber barons. It is interesting that they did not name one of those corporations. If they have to look at robber barons in New Zealand, I would have thought the New Zealand First member would know about the Wine-box. Not one overseas company was involved in that\u2014not one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI can tell the member why that is so. It is because overseas companies tend to be very careful about obeying the law. I have been a director of New Zealand companies overseas, and we are extremely careful to be very good citizens. There are quite good reasons for that. We certainly would not be interested in playing the sorts of games that New Zealand companies have played\u2014regrettably\u2014on occasions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThis also raises questions for New Zealand First and the Green Party. I will give one example. If we are to follow the advice given by New Zealand First and the Green Party, do we say to New Zealand\u2019s biggest multinational, Fonterra, that it should not own overseas companies, and that it should withdraw its bid for\u2014what is it?\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229125bcfe3a514e15b6645a7762874434\u0022\u003EGerrard Eckhoff\u003C/span\u003E: National Foods.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc9a87bf9578494798d33afb04c16871\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014National Foods in Australia? In fact, the Green member said that no foreigner ought to be able to own any land in New Zealand. That is interesting. I hate to break it to him, but I am a New Zealand citizen and I own land overseas. So if that theory is applied, that land should be taken away from me. I assure the member that I am a very good owner, and my wife would be even more upset than I would be if that were to happen. It is nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI say to the House that it is a shame when members get up and scream, because that is really what the New Zealand First member did. I guess he can plead his youth, as he did. I do not know what Rod Donald\u2019s excuse is for getting up and talking emotional claptrap, but it does not help the House. I do not doubt for a minute that there are many New Zealanders who instinctively fall for that sort of appeal, but it is still claptrap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003ELet me give the member another example, which is probably one of the more famous. We all know that the United States became the wealthiest nation on earth. One of the actions that achieved that was the building of the railroads right across the United States, which in that century was the big economic development. The people who paid for that were the British; the British put in the investment. Under the theory advanced by the Greens and New Zealand First, the United States should have come out of that experience as a very poor nation. Did they? No, not at all\u2014of course they did not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIf we had had the sense to get the British to build the New Zealand rail, I would not have had to go and save it; it would have been a problem for the British. But of course we put our money in, unlike\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df7ea0de56a94cfaa387670b2df5cbfa\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: The difference is that the British actually lived in the US.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022766a87b8eda2485c889206a855dcbabb\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, they lived in the US? That will come as a great shock to them. I guess they did in the sense that some of them thought the \u201Cunited states\u201D were still the colonies, but most of the investors did know about the Declaration of Independence. Most of them knew that the United States was a separate country, but there could have been a few New Zealand First supporters who got confused about that sort of development. I assure the member that no railway was built when the United States was still a colony of Britain, and the point I make to the member is that that is just one example\u2014a very easy one for anyone except New Zealand First members to see\u2014where the people of the United States were the real beneficiaries of that investment. No doubt British investors got some money, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EBut coming from the ACT party, which believes in sound economics, I say to the House that this whole bill is emotional claptrap. Of course overseas investors should have to obey the law, but they ought to obey the general law of New Zealand that applies to all investors. They should not have to fill out those sorts of forms and, as Green Party and New Zealand First members have accurately pointed out, many of the forms they will be asked to fill out have been put up just for political smokescreen reasons by the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b215ffe429f4127b3020460d77d53ec\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201d3730200b3452998fb01554ed326cc\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The National Party member says that is right. That is because neither of the two original parties in this Parliament are prepared to get up and say that what we ought to do is have no such bill of this sort. We should be saying that anyone who wants to come and invest in New Zealand can do so but they must obey the general laws of New Zealand, and that if there is anything wrong with those general laws then we should fix them. I think there is\u2014there are too many of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThis addition to investment law is of no assistance, so the ACT party will vote against it. Yes, there will be people who claim that assets are being sold. I tell the House that I have never sold a State asset. I have sold many State liabilities, but I have never sold a State asset. Some overseas people bought those liabilities and nearly all of them did a better job than previous Ministers. I say to the House that this bill is emotional nonsense, and that it is a great shame for the country that we are even attempting to pass laws of this nature. The ACT party will vote against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u002219e2cde1554d45029c3cccad815c9e2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219e2cde1554d45029c3cccad815c9e2b\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E It is a bit of a mixed blessing to follow a speech like the one we have just heard from Richard Prebble of the ACT party. On the one hand, I agreed with a fair bit of what he said earlier on in the speech but, on the other hand, right towards the end when he made the claim that he had never sold a Crown asset to overseas investors but that he had sold only Crown liabilities to them, I thought to myself that we should congratulate him on his genius. Not many Kiwis can talk overseas investors into buying New Zealand - based liabilities, and I think that that really is an incredible feat. I extend my congratulations to him for doing that. However, I think that maybe he is a bit of a stranger to the truth on some aspects of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe other irony relates to the position of New Zealand First. We had\u2014let us put it mildly\u2014a very impassioned speech from Craig McNair, who raved on about the sale of Crown assets. The irony of that to me is that just earlier this year the Government went to New Zealand First to get its support on the foreshore and seabed legislation, because it could not get the bill through without New Zealand First. The Government wanted to put the foreshore and seabed into Crown ownership, which Craig McNair spent his whole speech saying was a very dangerous thing to do, because the foreshore and seabed would be flogged off to overseas people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe very point of distinction that United Future had on that bill was to say that we should put the foreshore and seabed into the public domain, to make it clear that it is not for sale to overseas people. I do not think we will ever get around to selling it, but I note that little irony in the diatribe we heard from the New Zealand First member about how terrible it was to sell anything from this country to anyone from overseas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ERichard Prebble really hit the nail on the head in many ways. The fact is that the history of this country has from its very beginning been very, very influenced by overseas investment in our nation. When, for example, the ANZ bank tells us that it has been here since 1840, we remember that it was Australians who invested in this country and who continue to do so to this day. Overseas investment really has been a part and parcel of our history. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I think a lot of Kiwis overlook when they talk about the sale of land to foreigners is that it kind of depends on where people stand in the spectrum, does it not? They may just have the point of view that they do not want overseas people to own New Zealand land. If asked why, they will answer that it is because the buyers are foreigners. When asked why that is relevant, they will answer that it is because the buyers are foreigners. In other words, we get back to a sort of xenophobia on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EOn the other hand, if one talks to New Zealand landowners\u2014such as owners of big pieces of land, of whom I know several\u2014who actually want to sell their property and get the very best price from the market they can for the labour they have expended on that property, sometimes over many generations, and if the best price they can get happens to be from someone based overseas, the world looks very different, indeed. I do not think we should be in the business of stopping New Zealanders from freely exercising their right to sell their own property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWith respect, the New Zealand First member\u2019s speech was limiting in that it referred to only the Crown selling things. But there is a whole other class of business activity in this country, if members have not noticed\u2014that is, private business and private property ownership. One thing that goes with that reality is that those owners should have the right to transact business in the marketplace with more or less as little restraint as we can reasonably impose on them. Having said that, I tell members that United Future will support this Overseas Investment Bill, because I think that in a funny kind of way it probably comes down on about the right side of the ledger. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe political reality is that there are New Zealanders who are opposed to the sale of our land to overseas owners. Therefore, I think it is sensible to put some conditions in place, particularly when sites are sensitive. Young Nicks Head is a case in point, Cape Kidnappers is another, and there are several other very sensitive pieces of land for which we should put in place some requirements, because they are places that all of us value. I think it is fair and reasonable to have the requirements in this bill\u2014which is a plan for economic development\u2014to maintain the natural heritage and historic features of a site, and to have walking access.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWalking access is a very important issue. We in this country have a culture\u2014and I remember the Prime Minister talking about this to Paul Holmes this morning, I think, on the radio\u2014whereby we have broken away completely from British and, to some extent, American models. Citizens of those countries cannot walk on the beach in many places and cannot access lakes and rivers, because they are privately owned. I know of places in the United States where beaches are fenced off. As one is coming along the beach, one cannot get over the fence to the next bit of the beach because there is a physical barrier restraining one from doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ENew Zealand was founded on the basis that there should be free access that is reasonable to those parts of the country that in a very real sense are our endowment and are what we see as being universal destinations\u2014in other words, destinations that belong to all people, which also includes people coming here from overseas as tourists. So I think that the walking access requirement that has been made a part of the sale of large tracts of land to overseas investors is a very good way of signalling that that is Kiwi culture. Otherwise, the danger is that those people, with the best will in the world, will put a great big fence around a whole property and say that people cannot go there because it is theirs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8352feb1a114299a2dc774dadcf8542\u0022\u003EGerrard Eckhoff\u003C/span\u003E: Name me one property where that\u2019s happened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c093056186744b78e9beae82cb26456\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: One situation that has caused this bill to come into being is the D\u2019Urville Island situation. Some very real problems have arisen there, not only because of the access rights but also because of the fact that there are\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222612b22c5bf2422696639f179bdd8803\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: That land was off-limits before the foreigners bought it. I know; I tried to go there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e49790b1eda049b2a412dc5898b861de\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, two wrongs do not make a right. The point I am making is that I sincerely believe that it was part of my heritage to be able to walk up and down quite freely on the piece of beachfront I grew up on, and that is what I want my kids and my grandchildren to be able to do. I unashamedly think that that is part of Kiwi culture. This bill recognises that, which is very good, indeed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI also think, with regard to the D\u2019Urville Island situation, that the new rights brought into the bill about not fulfilling the conditions of the consent are extremely important. There must, logically, be a way to ensure that if one puts in place conditions attaching to a sale, the conditions are enforced. Otherwise, they are not conditions; they are just suggestions. So I think it is exactly right to state in the bill that if one strays outside or fails to comply with the conditions on which one purchases a property, then one will be subject to penalties. In extreme cases, the court can order the disposal of a property to new owners, who will then be subject to and have to fulfil those conditions. That would probably result in a very real loss to the foreign purchaser.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EAs far as business is concerned, I think I have already made United Future\u2019s position quite clear. We welcome, and should welcome, business investment in New Zealand. One can think of so many examples recently of New Zealand companies successfully investing offshore. I was just reading in today\u2019s or yesterday\u2019s paper\u2014I am not sure which; we are still in Tuesday after all, and it has been a pretty long Tuesday\u2014that Glassons, for example, is now succeeding quite well in the Australian market. That is the latest example of successful investment by a New Zealand company overseas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThere has to be a reciprocity, of course. As Richard Prebble said, if we want to invest in other people\u2019s countries, then we have to reciprocate by allowing them to come and invest here. I think that everyone benefits from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe last point I make is one that Richard Prebble also made. I agree with him that I have not yet seen anybody remove any land from this country. If an overseas-based person buys land here and puts money in here, it creates jobs and wealth. That is the way in which our economy will grow, expand, and succeed in the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u002298a9df9e46df443982a0d604a9653be2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298a9df9e46df443982a0d604a9653be2\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister for Economic Development):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the Overseas Investment Bill. I bring a practical example of why I support this bill. I have listened to a number of claptrap contributions that referred to this idea that if we sell land, then all of a sudden somebody will pick it up and take it away. Right next to my bay in the far north there was a marginal farm called Tepene Tablelands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EThe area was about 4,000 acres. The majority of the land was covered in gorse and tea tree, and 50 percent of it was non-productive. It was owned by two Kiwi farmers, and they employed 2\u00BD people. Some years ago an American investor came along and made an offer for the property, and despite the ramping and raging of some of the local politicians and of some other politicians, the investor actually secured and bought the property. Now, 7 years later, that property is one of the top international golf courses in the world. It employs some 60 people on a permanent basis, and two-thirds of those people are actually related to me and to the leader of New Zealand First. Two-thirds of the people employed are local tangata whenua, and they are people who have been trained to do the job. I say that that investment has uplifted the economic destiny of our community. Two-thirds of the employed are local people, and a number of them are in managerial positions. Now we have a piece of land that is productive and making a contribution, not only to the local economy but to the New Zealand economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EThat is the reason why I want to stand up and give an example of a practical application of what this bill allows, and I want to stick that up the noses of those people who are saying: \u201Cblah, blah, blah, blah. We are not going to sell any more land in case somebody comes along and offers X\u2019s of millions of dollars, invests in our country, and creates jobs for our people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u002205db52eaf3424b35b994b8e27a31d430\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205db52eaf3424b35b994b8e27a31d430\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E That was an outstanding contribution from the last speaker. I was hoping he would take more time and give another example, but we are very grateful for having had the benefit of his contribution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe National Party is prepared to support this legislation through to its next stage and, as my colleague the Hon David Carter has already foreshadowed, we will watch carefully what happens at the select committee stage and reserve our position. I have to say that at a first read it appears to me that this bill is a pragmatic and common-sense solution to what is an emotional and often very ill-informed debate, flamed by some politicians in pursuit of what I roughly phrase as cheap votes. National has no problem with the concept of foreigners pouring their hard-earned cash into this country, subject to some clear rules of engagement. For goodness\u2019 sake\u2014everybody wins! Overseas investors get to live, work, and own property in Godzone, and we get money for education, employment, infrastructure\u2014members can name it. That is the type of contribution that foreign capital makes to our economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EBut I have to say, also, that this bill appears to me to be an absolute no-brainer. Arguing against it is a bit like arguing against motherhood. But then, on reflection I realise that some members of the House did argue against that last week so I probably should not use that example. No one is knocking tourism in New Zealand, no one minds planeloads of foreigners coming here and spending their cash\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022842e2bf9001148deb5a2edef648d1c77\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: The Green member does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ac9f7217aeb4a46887b18edf92a1c03\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Green member knock tourism? Well, that is probably enough said. No one should mind foreigners coming here and deciding they want to buy a company or a farm\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6a1b39eb5ad4eb9bd6a5347b37d0b70\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I bet he doesn\u2019t ride a NZ-made bicycle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de2e6604ebaf450387c741494bdc5f81\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: I bet he does not. Foreigners are really saying to people in New Zealand that they think this is a great country and they want a stake in it. I say to members in this House, and particularly to Green Party and New Zealand First members, that this is just another form of immigration. Unless we forget, I remind everyone that we are a nation formed from immigration, beginning with Kupe. Overseas investment is a vote of confidence in the New Zealand economy. Years of market reform in the 1980s and the 1990s have made this a very good-performing economy, but some Luddites in the House want to wind back that clock. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI have heard all sorts of talk about our heritage being sold off, etc., but I want to quote some examples that put those myths to bed, I hope forever. In the last 3 years, 11 Canterbury high-country stations were sold. Six of those went to New Zealand interests, three were sold to New Zealand and foreign interests in joint ventures, and only two were sold to foreigners\u2014so much for the argument that Kiwis are being priced out of the marketplace! Over the last 11 years, 40 percent of foreign-owned properties were sold back to New Zealand interests. I have also to say that with the benefit of that overseas capital, those farms are now performing at a much higher level than they ever were before. They are making significant contributions to the local economy, in terms of both their produce and their employment opportunities. Let us remember that nothing is sold in this country\u2014or not yet, unless Mr Sutton has his way\u2014unless there is a willing seller and a willing buyer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI challenge a member of the Green Party or the New Zealand First Party to stand up\u2014whoever will\u2014and say that he or she is prepared to take $50,000 or $100,000 less for his or her property, simply because it is an overseas buyer who is making that offer. The Government has no right to involve itself in the New Zealand property market, and has no role in that market. I therefore congratulate the Minister on resisting the pressure that must have been brought to bear from some quarters for him to do just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI want to take time to quote another example. Five Star Beef Ltd\u2019s feedlot in Ashburton houses nearly 18,000 cattle, all destined for the top tables in Japanese restaurants. It is a joint-venture operation between Japanese and New Zealand interests, and Japanese capital contributes something like $30 million to that venture. Not only does that feedlot employ significant numbers of people in the area but it underpins the local barley price, two meatworks, three or four transport companies, and dozens of grazing and silage contracts, and the flow-on effects into the Ashburton retail trade are extremely significant. That is what foreign capital does for this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI offer yet another example from mid-Canterbury. The Mt Hutt ski-field is now regarded as one of New Zealand\u2019s premier tourist attractions. The prosperity of the township of Methven is underpinned by the performance and success of that ski-field\u2014and guess what? The capital that underpins that ski-field is Japanese capital, as well. [Interruption] Is the member contradicting me? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b27dbec90cb649e39881dc0794868398\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll tell you when I\u2019ve made it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e396493fa104371a0b977745e7a84e8\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Well, a lot of it is foreign capital; does the member agree with that? In fact, there is actually some misunderstanding around the Mt Hutt ski-field. About 4 or 5 years ago there was an exchange of ownership. The original owners of Mt Hutt ski-field were having difficulty trading so they sought significant capital. My understanding is that that capital came from Japan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI have another example: the Terrace Downs golf resort in mid-Canterbury is now regarded as one of the premier golf courses in this country. About 10 years ago a Japanese investor\u2014risk taker is a better way of describing him\u2014came to the area and bought a farm that nobody else wanted. The local community said: \u201CYou are absolutely mad.\u201D Today, the capital employed in that resort is in excess of $80 million. The resort employs 180 people at the height of the season, and has been doing so for many years. An astounding number of people in the local community\u2014in particular, Christchurch\u2014have built properties on this resort. One needs only to go there to see how outstanding that development is. That was all due to foreign capital. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EIf we adopted some of the arguments put forward in this House we would build a wall around this country to keep out the rest of the world, but that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We need foreign capital, we need foreign investment, and we need the type of person I have just spoken about to come here and invest. We need to embrace those people. But the anti-foreign sentiment I have heard tonight makes my skin crawl. It is sad but a lot of the protest is racially based. I have to say that some members are objecting because a lot of people who are coming here and investing in New Zealand are Asian. I say to them: \u201CWake up and smell the roses.\u201D We are a multicultural country now, and we are part of Asia. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI say to those members: \u201CDon\u2019t be surprised, because you will be slashing your wrists, if we see people from Pakistan, South Korea, and Mainland China coming here to invest, more and more, into the future.\u201D Capital is a scarce resource and we should embrace it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6368860ba2e4399abd288f0470c588c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6368860ba2e4399abd288f0470c588c\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I compliment the previous speaker on his well-presented, well-researched, and knowledgable contribution, which started from Kupe. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EIt singularly impressed me. I support this bill on the basis of the arguments that have been presented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002264a852cf931a48799a0c494bf2993312\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264a852cf931a48799a0c494bf2993312\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E The National Party gives cautious support to the Overseas Investment Bill. We support its referral to the select committee, and will watch very closely as submitters come forward and put pressure on the Government. We will be interested to see where and when the Government folds on some aspects of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe know that there are far too many roadblocks to investment in this country, not only to overseas investment but also to internal investment. Members have heard many, many claims made in debates in the House that the Resource Management Act has caused a slowing down in investment in this country both from overseas and from internal investors, large and small. The taxation regime, and all the associated levies and taxes, slow down investment in this country. The immigration regime holds back expansion in business, because people cannot employ the right skills from overseas. This is either because of xenophobia, as demonstrated by the New Zealand First member who spoke earlier, or because we are allowing into this country those who do not contribute and never will, and those who have no skills and never will. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI turn to clause 18(2)(d), which deals with land access. It states, with regard to land owned by an overseas investor, that there will be adequate mechanisms in place for walking access over the relevant land or a relevant part of that land by the public or any section of the public. It is interesting to see that provision introduced in this bill. I hope it is not the thin end of the wedge for later Government legislation to see a \u201Cright to roam\u201D for the general public across agricultural, rural, and other remote land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI know that David Carter has travelled the length and breadth of this country, both in the media and physically, preaching the National Party\u2019s stance on that issue. We say the general public should have the courtesy to talk to farmers before crossing their land, just as they always have, because they will see farmers allowing them free and safe access across the land, just as farmers always have. That is what David Carter has been saying, the length and breadth of this country. Some hundreds of metres behind him, of course, has come Gerrard Eckhoff echoing those sentiments and redistributing David Carter\u2019s speech. We thank him for pushing National Party policy. These land access issues, as demonstrated in clause 18(2)(d), relating to land owned by overseas investors, had better not be a stalking horse for free-range access over our rural properties, because that involves safety issues, private property rights, and, not least of all, matters of courtesy that have served this country well for many years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI also take great interest in clause 73, which deals with the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996, because that deals with the overseas ownership of fishing quota. It might be of interest to the House that overseas interests are prohibited from owning New Zealand fishing quota. In fact, they are prohibited from owning not just quota but provisional catch history and annual catch entitlement, without obtaining exemptions under that Fisheries Act. \u201COverseas ownership\u201D is defined as any company or building society in which 25 percent or more of any of its shares are held by that overseas person or entity. But it is not just the ownership of share rights; it is also the control, or the voting rights, held at any meeting that that person or entity may hold. That influence cannot exceed 25 percent, either. If that figure is exceeded, either by the ownership share numbers or by the voting power on any meeting relating to that entity, then that is deemed an overseas owned company or person. They are prohibited from owning fisheries quota. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EInterestingly, the rules that will be brought in by this Government are about amending the Fisheries Act 1996 so that it falls in line with this other legislation. I am intrigued to see section 57G, \u201CCriteria for overseas investments in fishing quota\u201D, inserted by clause 73. That section states that all relevant individual overseas persons must be of good character. I will be intrigued to see how this Government, with its policy, judges that. I trust that it will not have anything to do with being part of the Labour Party. There is also criteria for overseas investments in fishing quota, relating to the Immigration Act of 1987. That Act lists certain people who fall into a category that we do not want to see owning New Zealand fishing quota. I think Ahmed Zaoui would qualify under this section as the Government has clearly welcomed him with open arms by not deporting him the moment he arrived in this country but giving him 2 years\u2019 stay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7a9e12dd39c4e438694a4e3aa6736cd\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Free board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226142073a2897463a9d184ecada799858\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: And free board, as the ACT member chips in. It is not just free board but a weekly $180 cheque for the next little while, which will contribute to the friars\u2019 fund I should think. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ESection 57H, inserted by clause 73, also deals with determining whether overseas investment in fishing quota is in the national interest. The criteria there deal with the creation of job opportunities in New Zealand; the introduction into New Zealand of new technology that may be useful to us; the development of new export markets, which may not have happened if this overseas investment in quota did not take place; added competition to make the fishery more efficient in the use of our fishing product; the introduction into New Zealand of additional investment for purposes of development, which of course is quite important; and improvement in the efficiency of processing of New Zealand fish or aquatic life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhat concerns me is section 57H(2)(b)\u2014and I will be interested in the select committee examining this\u2014which states: \u201Cany other criteria prescribed under the Overseas Investment Act 2004,\u201D. That, of course, is subject to Government policy of the day and may be far too wide ranging. It is not just giving the Government free and unchecked scope to allow investment into the fishing industry, but scope to close off investment in the New Zealand fishing industry. So those are the issues that I would particularly like to highlight this evening. We will be supporting the bill to the select committee, and watching with interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b55db1d8c1624e79b3ae0174aa1eae82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b55db1d8c1624e79b3ae0174aa1eae82\u0022\u003ELIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take just a brief call. This particular bill has certainly provoked some interest in my own electorate of Christchurch East and I know that there are constituents who want to have meetings about it, in order to discuss the ramifications of it. I think my constituents will find that the aim of creating a balance between the need to protect New Zealand\u2019s assets, while also promoting overseas investments in order to achieve growth and innovation, will have been met. I look forward to the debate and the report back from the select committee in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c19b2c848a284db49862dc54b5cbd147\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 85\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 32\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time, and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d5226fba64d845488f636412f47d967e\u0022\u003E Securities Legislation Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002264fe1ab7a7dc4fdfabf243989e26e3c3\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022 data-id=\u002258f9e7c92f164bcea420d75e831b7bd9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258f9e7c92f164bcea420d75e831b7bd9\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Securities Legislation Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I shall move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EThis bill is designed to build confidence in New Zealand financial markets and to encourage investment in New Zealand\u2019s financial markets by strengthening the regulatory framework embodied in securities, securities trading, and takeovers law. Accordingly, the bill amends the Securities Act, the Securities Markets Act, the Takeovers Act, and the Takeovers Code. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003ECurrent law relating to the trading in securities and futures on registered exchanges is not working as effectively as it should be. For example, our insider-trading law is far too complex. Despite the regime being in force for over 10 years, no one has been found liable for insider trading under the Act and this is not because we do not think that insider trading happens. The Securities Legislation Bill proposes a new rationale to govern this conduct so that insider trading would be regarded as a harm to the entire market, not just to the particular company and its shareholders. It acknowledges that insider trading has the potential to damage New Zealand\u2019s reputation as a place to invest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EOther aspects of the current law do not conform to international standards or best practice. For example, New Zealand does not have rules targeted specifically at addressing market manipulative practices that create a false impression of trading. This lack of regulatory oversight can affect both international and domestic confidence in our market. The bill introduces comprehensive prohibitions against market manipulation. When seeking help, people need to be able to make a decent assessment of their financial advisers. Are they qualified? Do they belong to a professional organisation? What commissions will they earn if people take their advice? Who can people turn to if it all goes wrong? Current disclosure requirements for investment advisers are inadequate in achieving this. This bill, therefore, aims to improve the quality of adviser disclosure and establishes the Securities Commission as the public enforcement body policing the disclosure laws. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EFor a market to have integrity, the regulatory institutions that monitor and enforce the law need to have sufficient powers to carry out their functions effectively. The bill increases the size and range of penalties and remedies under the relevant Acts in order to deter contraventions of the law and to encourage compliance with regulatory obligations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EIn light of all this, some of the main provisions and benefits of this bill include strengthening the law relating to insider trading by adopting a new regime similar to the Australian regime, based on the market efficiency and market fairness rationales for the regulation of such conduct. The new provisions are designed to improve monitoring of insider-trading behaviour, and enforcement action against misconduct. Studies show that countries achieve additional liquidity in their markets if they have an effective enforced insider-trading regime. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EThe bill introduces comprehensive prohibitions against market manipulation. These provisions covering misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to dealings in securities or takeover activities empower the regulatory bodies with the relevant expertise, the Securities Commission and the Takeovers Panel, to enforce the prohibitions. Deterring manipulative practices will eliminate artificial price distortions and, therefore, assist market efficiency. The prohibitions will also bring New Zealand into line with international practice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EI turn to improvements to the law relating to substantial security holder disclosure. The bill simplifies the regime so that mandatory disclosure requirements apply only to listed voting securities by class. This will make for disclosures that are easier to understand. It will also promote an informed market by ensuring that the identity and trading activities of persons who may control or influence significant voting rights in a public issue are known, which will enhance investment adviser disclosure and improve enforcement of that law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E The bill ensures that advisers bring matters relevant to an investor\u2019s trust and confidence in both the adviser and his or her advice to the investor\u2019s attention. The creation of new offences, where advisers recommend illegal offers of securities or advertise in a misleading way, will deter conduct particularly harmful to the public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EThe Securities Commission will have an enforcement role over investment advisers and brokers, ensuring that disclosures are made to the public, remedying breaches of the disclosure laws, and, where appropriate, taking proceedings in the public interest. This will achieve consistency and cohesion in the penalties and remedies available for breaches of securities and takeovers law. The introduction of criminal penalties for insider trading and market manipulation, as well as of a range of civil pecuniary penalties across the legislation, aims to deter conduct harmful to the integrity and efficiency of securities markets, empowering the Securities Commission to be a fully effective enforcement agency for securities law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EThe bill extends the commission\u2019s brief so that it has a consistent enforcement role for all securities laws, including the ability to apply for civil remedies and compensation on behalf of public issuers and those who have suffered loss as a result of contraventions of the law. Under this bill the Securities Commission will be able to apply for court orders in respect of breaches of securities law. For example, it could apply for a court order to prohibit or disqualify a person from being a director or from taking part in a company\u2019s management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EPublic confidence in sound and effectively enforced securities laws makes New Zealand a more attractive investment destination. The measures in this bill will encourage public confidence in our capital markets and the institutions that support those markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d42b361be2694d3bbd74569705c625e8\u0022\u003E Speaker\u2019s Rulings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002286cb119f1dd6480fa845193864fde4d0\u0022\u003EMembers\u2019 Speeches\u2014Termination\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u002264a29c0eefae4bef84e89552b7f1b50d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264a29c0eefae4bef84e89552b7f1b50d\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before my colleague Brian Connell leads off the debate for the National Party, I seek a point of clarification. Earlier during this session I sought a ruling from you as to whether a member\u2019s speech was terminated at the point that the member resumed his or her seat. You said that you would come back to me on that. I am not asking you for that ruling now. I just wondered in what time frame we can expect the ruling to be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u00224f31d56c168c43d7a1e706427055943b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f31d56c168c43d7a1e706427055943b\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I am ready to give an answer on the issue of when a member\u2019s speech terminates. It is correct that when a member resumes his or her seat the speech is terminated. Although that should be obvious it cannot cover all cases, because members may indeed resume their seat, while speaking, for a whole lot of other reasons. They may get cramp or something like that. For our purposes at the moment, the member is quite correct that when members resume their seat their speech is ended, but it is very much up to the Speaker to make a decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8371a1200e948e38df84031796ace9e\u0022\u003ESecurities Legislation Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022916871f8ff2946a1b98eafb77fcdf088\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001027\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u002231bf93085ad44c398c8f1a9addf2dfd9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231bf93085ad44c398c8f1a9addf2dfd9\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E National intends to support this bill through to the next stage, and we will reserve our position thereafter. This bill addresses second-tier application issues, such as defining the territorial scope of investment adviser law received or given in New Zealand. In what I consider to be a good move, it removes the $20 million threshold requirement from the definition of \u201Cspecified company\u201D in the Takeovers Act, in order to give greater certainty about whether a takeover is governed by the Takeovers Code. The Institute of Chartered Accountants raised a series of questions on that issue in a submission to the Ministry of Economic Development in September 2002, which somewhat persuaded me to come to the conclusion that the threshold should be removed. It argued that due to the shortcomings of the code, there is little guidance as to how the $20 million asset threshold is to be measured\u2014is it gross value of assets or market value that triggers the threshold? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe bill deals with three other major issues that I want to address: insider trading, market manipulation, and substantial security holders\u2019 disclosure. The bill sets out to strengthen the law relating to insider trading. Conceptually, I think most of us would agree with that. I do not want players in the market to get richer on the basis that they have access to information that other players or investors do not have. Most of my business experience was gained in Australia, and over the last 10 years or so there have been some high-profile prosecutions of senior executives who engaged in insider trading in Australia. That those prosecutions were successful speaks volumes about Australia\u2019s determination to deal with those who would engage in some type of corporate fraud or deception. Australia\u2019s insider-trading legislation has been framed to give teeth to that determination. I spoke about successful prosecutions in Australia, yet in the corresponding time in New Zealand, to my knowledge no successful prosecutions have been made. That cannot and should not continue. In that regard New Zealand is looked upon as something of a soft touch. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe bill sets out quite unashamedly to adapt and introduce a regime similar to Australia\u2019s. It will apply to any person who has material information that is not generally available to the public. I do have a caution that I would like the select committee to be cognisant of. Before extending the scope of our insider-trading regime, the select committee must ensure that any benefits to be derived from that will outweigh the costs involved. A broad-reach system will invariably increase compliance costs for business. When members of the select committee are grappling with that issue I will be looking for them to determine the application of the law\u2014that is, whether it will apply to on-market transactions only, to all transactions in quoted securities only, or to all transactions in securities? Those are difficult decisions and they are quite complex in nature, so the select committee will need to take expert advice in coming to a decision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EMarket manipulation is quite a different matter from insider trading. Market manipulation through the distorting of prices clearly impacts negatively on the efficient functioning of capital markets. The resulting uncertainty discourages trading, reduces liquidity, increases the cost of capital, and compromises the ability of the markets to allocate capital to those firms that are best able to use it. Clearly, market manipulation is a problem, but again I caution the select committee to make a judgment call on whether the medicine will be worse than the illness. The unwanted costs of regulation need to be weighed up against the benefits of a well-designed regulatory regime. Essentially, the challenge is to catch abusive practices without catching harmless practices, to boot. The next decision the select committee will have to grapple with is this: should market manipulation be viewed as a private wrong or as a wrong against the market? The answer to that question will be critical to the framing of the law. Even in Australia very little action has been brought against those engaged in market manipulation, simply because it is hard to determine where the responsibility lies. So, while the theory is good, the select committee may find that issue is a particularly hard nut to crack. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to address the issue of substantial security holders\u2019 disclosure. The bill aims to simplify the current regime by requiring the disclosure of relevant interests by class, and in respect of listed voting securities only. The updated regime ensures that investors and public issuers can identify substantial security holders and therefore make informed investment decisions. Of course, the National Party supports that, because the ability of investors to make informed decisions goes to the heart of credibility and of investor confidence. As we heard in a previous debate, investor confidence in our markets is absolutely critical if New Zealand is to grow as a nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EAgain, though, I have to issue a caution to the select committee. Costs to the investing community\u2014to the firms involved in the capital markets\u2014will increase. The select committee must ensure that a mechanism is in place to ensure that a spike in costs does not become institutionalised. That is one of my major concerns about the legislation that this House has passed during my time in Parliament. What is not often understood is that organisations maintain their profitability by being able to manipulate their margins. In times when there is revenue aplenty, that does not represent such an obstacle. But if we institutionalise costs into the cost line of businesses, when things turn bad\u2014when the revenue line turns down\u2014the ability of organisations to maintain their margins, and therefore their profitability, is impinged upon, because they have no control over the costs that have been built into their businesses through what I roughly call the institutionalisation of costs. So, when I sit on the select committee that I understand will be dealing with this legislation, I will caution my colleagues that we need to be very cognisant of that concern. In the case of this issue, it will not be easy to find solutions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThis is very complex legislation, and we are grappling with very complex issues. I will repeat my cautions. We must not create medicine that is actually worse than the illness. We need to make sure we have a solution that gives the business community and the investor community, which we seek to support, confidence in the legislation we are framing. With those cautions, I conclude.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e437ed7352544887ab642f16e8b407fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e437ed7352544887ab642f16e8b407fc\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to rise in support of the Securities Legislation Bill, which makes amendments to the Securities Act, the Securities Markets Act, the Takeovers Act, and the Takeovers Code, which is enforced under the Takeovers Act. It does so with the intention of improving the regulation of the financial markets, and the intention behind that is to give people confidence in investing in New Zealand\u2019s markets, and so to improve our economy. Amongst other things, the bill aligns our insider-trading laws more closely with those of Australia, and it makes some simplifying changes with regard to substantial security holders\u2019 disclosures. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022 data-id=\u00221f94c3ca1bf64a8ca549d05d8e495c4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f94c3ca1bf64a8ca549d05d8e495c4c\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First supports the progress of this legislation to the select committee. It is clear that the current laws surrounding insider trading are inadequate. To date, there has been not one prosecution in New Zealand for insider trading. This legislation will amend the Securities Act, the Securities Markets Act, the Takeovers Act, and the Takeovers Code. This legislation is desperately needed in the marketplace. The stock exchange operates a market within a regulatory framework designed to maximise transparency, fairness, effectiveness, and competitiveness, and to promote confidence among all market participants. It is also there for shareholders. All shareholders should be treated fairly and equitably. Any unfair share-trading practices should be detected and met with effective remedies. It is these remedies that have failed in the past. The market rules should be backed by effective mechanisms for investigation, surveillance, and enforcement, with strong sanctions against deliberate breaches of the rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EWe have seen huge corporate frauds and means of swapping moneys from one company or one corporation to another, and methods of changing the marketplace by insider trading. New Zealand First, as most members will know, has always stood strongly against corporate crime of any description. We support any moves to clean up our securities market, improve people\u2019s confidence in the market, and bring to justice those who have not been playing by the rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EThe Rt Hon Winston Peters refused to quit in his pursuit of the wine-box matter. That clear example shows that New Zealand First is not prepared to allow the kind of corporate fraud that has gone on in the past.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202f3aeb31ca04ae4be9b679a0c96b391\u0022\u003EPita Paraone\u003C/span\u003E: What support did this House give him?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddf099c09aeb467c868d2694d142bf63\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Absolute zero! Members fought long and hard to block every move by which he tried to bring that fraud to the House. It was only on a slip that he was able to table the wine box and expose the fraud that had gone on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First stands firm on its commitment to fight corporate crime. I would like to quote the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who said: \u201CNew Zealanders are simply not interested in returning to the failed far-right policies that Don Brash proposes. They know that National has no concern for ordinary New Zealanders, but is in the pocket of big business. What has National said about the insider-trading case involving New Zealand Rail?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3c864bf48804d6a97d240764cb33542\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member knows that it is unacceptable to accuse any member of Parliament or any political party of being under the influence of any party or organisation outside the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229317fd24f1b9459683e399782d4be050\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Quite right. Mr Catchpole, could you withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a1337a42ba740479e80b08ed5d1d3f7\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. Without sound insider-trading laws and antitrust laws, New Zealand is completely out of step with international markets. That is not moot, and we have a situation where certain parties in this House have not supported addressing such issues. I dare not say any more on that issue, because I will be pulled up again by the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bfcd619e63145db8deba5536e3857bf\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: They are very sensitive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c42e162119214483a512a3eef4beadef\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: They are obviously very sensitive about this, and with good reason. Aspects of this bill require fine-tuning, but it is a step in the right direction. It aims to bring New Zealand\u2019s securities laws into line with those of the rest of the world. We expect many of the flaws in this legislation to be ironed out by the select committee process, with the help of submissions from the public and from other parties of interest. But our main issue with this legislation is that New Zealand First wants to see the marketplace cleaned up to provide security and put confidence back in the market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EA more transparent market is a more attractive market to New Zealand investors and to investors from overseas. The provision in the legislation to prohibit people from creating false trading activities, such as buying and selling stock to themselves, is to be applauded. Any efforts to stop this are greatly appreciated and welcomed by New Zealand First. Some critics say that the regulations will be expensive to uphold. We are not entirely convinced that the extra $1 million that the Government is prepared to put into this legislation is enough. Let us face it, Australia has a budget in excess of $200 million for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. That is a lot more than New Zealand is prepared to put in. That extra $1 million will bring the total up to only $7 million. So New Zealand First is concerned by the fact that this will not really be sufficient. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EEnforcing insider-trading rules is very difficult and will remain difficult, even with this legislation, but at least we are getting some mechanisms in place that will make it far more difficult for insider traders, and make it easier for them to be caught and exposed. Some in the industry have also said that the legislation amounts to smoke and mirrors and they would prefer that the Government had adopted laws that are better suited to New Zealand, rather than mimicking the Australian laws. Unfortunately, in Australia, as Brian Connell pointed out, there have been six prosecutions over the last 10 years. But Brian Connell did not point out that only one person has been convicted and gone to jail. So even with all that extra money it is very difficult, and obviously the Australian example is not necessarily the best for New Zealand. We want to see some changes made to this bill and we will be working in the select committee to make sure those changes are brought about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EThe select committee process is likely to iron out these issues and we will certainly be working with the committee to make sure that those problems within the bill are ironed out. We will make sure, at all stages, that the bill will be what the marketplace requires. Certainly the stock exchange, with its high standards, would expect the support from the legislation to ensure that people do not take advantage of situations and do not rack up share and securities prices by insider trading, by using insider funds to swap from one company to another, or by buying their own shares to ensure that their share prices increase. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First wants to make sure that the rest of the community, and certainly the business community, understands that we will be fighting hard to ensure that there is fair play for everybody, that everybody has fair access to all the information, and that others do not take advantage of that situation. We have seen that in the past, and have fought against it. New Zealand First wants to ensure that this bill makes the marketplace a safer and better place to trade, and that trading is on an even playing field so that it is fair for everybody. New Zealand First supports this legislation to the select committee, and we look forward to working through it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5af90b860cb4f96b157ca2dd3f0ce91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5af90b860cb4f96b157ca2dd3f0ce91\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It is quite sad for me to be looking at this legislation, which covers areas that I have spent so much of my working life working in. I think I was probably the most determined, as a practising commercial lawyer, to uphold and improve enforcement of securities law in this country. I spent 9 years putting hundreds of unpaid hours into the surveillance functions of the market surveillance panel, and I spent many, many hours making submissions and encouraging people to bring proceedings against insider traders. I spent a long time on policy issues, to understand the securities laws of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhen I look at this bill and see the primitive aping of Australian law I am really sorry for New Zealand. One of the advantages that this country should be exploiting is the ability to avoid some of the stupid political solutions that the Australians inflict on themselves as a result of having too many layers of politicians with too much influence after the occasional moral panic and the political hysteria that follows from their crashes and panics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI look at what we have done with, for example, insider-trading law and I see it going wrong, in two ways. Firstly, it is not very complex. Insider trading needs a clear conceptual foundation. We deliberately did not adopt one in 1988 and we deliberately are now moving even further away from a clear principle. Insider trading has resulted in a number of proceedings. I know of proceedings that have resulted in the payment of millions of dollars by the offenders. I know of the proceeding that I prosecuted in the name of my wife, Roger Kerr\u2019s wife, and Roger Kerr, against Kerry Hoggard. Hoggard paid many times the value of what he made. The only reason that it did not proceed to a conclusion was because of a law that meant that if we had gone further and taken the case right through, the court would have held that his offer precluded us from recovering our costs. I believe that that is probably the case with a number of these proceedings. If we had refused his offer to settle, the court would have said, not unfairly, when it reached an eventual outcome, that because he had offered to settle for an amount that was in the order of the penalty that the court might order, it would not award costs. The costs were so big that we settled. What I can say is that we were not alone. There are cases still trundling through the courts where insider traders will pay very heavy penalties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI then look at the dishonesty in this law\u2014and it is dishonest. It refers to civil pecuniary penalties, as if there is some magic in those words. I think what it really means is penalties that can be levied on the balance of probabilities. The standards that are set out are standards that no politician would tolerate, such as absolute liability, or liability for being inadvertently misleading. The legislation includes liability of up to a $5 million fine for something that is not even defined. There is liability for breaches of regulations that have not been written. I think it is very sad to see this House adopting the sanctimonious hysteria mode of saying that there must be badness out there because we have not seen prosecutions, and we should therefore throw away longstanding principles. The State must not use its coercive powers to punish people until there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI think it is sad, also, because we will inevitably achieve the Australian culture. I have worked on both sides of the Tasman on fundraisings, takeovers, and securities and I believe that the New Zealand market was far more intrinsically honest than the Australian market. I believe that this is partly a result of this kind of law. The Australians have an insider-trading law that everyone knows cannot be used because honest people will be put behind bars. So they have a set of understandings that mean people know the law is never actually applied the way it reads, and now we are adopting it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWe are saying that if someone has information that the market would like to have, even if that person acquired it perfectly honestly, had spent a lifetime in that business, and understood the significance of a Government announcement of a change of policy before anyone else did, and was making sure that the business trades on the investment subsequently made\u2014and he or she knows that\u2014and the information has not been derived from anywhere except by a public announcement, that person is still an insider trader. That is absolutely what happens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ENew section 8A(1), which is proposed to be inserted into the Securities Markets Act by clause 21, states that a person is an insider trader if that person: \u201C(a) has material information relating to the public issuer that is not generally available to the market; and (b) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is material information; and (c) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is not generally available to the market.\u201D That person is an insider trader, and cannot trade. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhat is \u201Cmaterial information\u201D? The information that is material will be a person\u2019s knowledge of the significance. That is that person\u2019s own proprietary information. For example, a person may have spent a lifetime as a scientist understanding the next cure for Dothistroma pini for trees and will know, the moment it becomes evident, that there is a genetic test for that disease. He or she will have the ability to increase the value of the entire forest estate of New Zealand. But this bill would say that until that person has explained it so that everyone in our market understands it, that person cannot use his or her own knowledge\u2014even though that person did not get it from anyone within the company. It was not obtained illegally\u2014the information was drawn from the person\u2019s own research. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWe know that that will happen. This market is given a feeble exception, whereby the bill provides that it is not inside information if it is obtained by independent research and analysis. Well, what is \u201Cindependent research and analysis\u201D? It means \u201Cplanned investigation to gain new knowledge and understanding\u201D. I would think that would be a phone call. Clearly, someone has to plan to make a phone call, which seems to me to be a planned investigation undertaken to gain new knowledge. In other words, there is a set of slogans as the standard for an insider and then, because that is completely unrealistic, there is a set of exemptions that mean the law is actually mocked. Anyone faced with a potential $5 million fine in any court will lean over backwards to find that a person can fall within a planned investigation undertaken to gain new knowledge and understanding. In other words, this law is simply a charade. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWe had a rational\u2014or semi-rational\u2014test before, which said that if someone had information that is not that person\u2019s property and that person has misused it, that person would be liable. That was rational, because it was upholding the ethical standards of those who acquire information in circumstances where they should not use it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThat is only a part of this law. I have looked through it, and I know that people will not invest the time in protesting, because they know that the market in Australia gets around it and works. I am not surprised by the statistic of one secure prosecution, given by Mr Jones from New Zealand First. It is really hard, because often markets can work only when informed traders participate. As an uninformed trader, I want the market price to be set by a whole lot of people who know more than me. I want the market price to be set by those who know that the new disease can be cured. I do not want a market that will adjust its price only when everyone understands it. That ruins markets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIt has been known for years that the Australian test is illogical and is a joke, but the Australians have enough clout to be able to persuade a weak Government and feeble Ministers. They are like kids sitting on a bulldozer. They do not know how to drive it, but they can do damage and make it make a good noise. So every other kid on the block is admiring them. Others, who would love to have the controls of the bulldozer, are saying: \u201CYes, we\u2019ll pretend that you can drive, if you pretend that we can.\u201D That is what this Government is, in a securities market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u0022167ffb45c27e4d7a8ecdb6b26444131c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022167ffb45c27e4d7a8ecdb6b26444131c\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party supports this bill going to the select committee. We look forward to the debate that will occur there and the submissions it will receive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EMembers spend a lot of time in this House working ourselves into a lather to see who can be toughest on the sorts of crimes that are committed by the marginalised and deprived in this society, but I think it is just as important that we have equally stringent rules for those who have every advantage but who, nevertheless, take advantage of other people and commit crimes involving very large amounts of money. No doubt there will be a lot of debate at the select committee as to what is the best way to do it. I found the points that Stephen Franks made very interesting, and we look forward to further debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c42bb1909d75430d9fc049860d81e35e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c42bb1909d75430d9fc049860d81e35e\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I find it quite interesting and perhaps quite fortuitous that the Securities Legislation Bill follows hard on the heels of the Overseas Investment Bill, because there are quite significant interrelationships between the two things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIf we look at the big picture\u2014and many of us made this point when talking about the Overseas Investment Bill\u2014we see that New Zealand is dependent on overseas people investing in this country. If the market is to work properly, one of the things that overseas people investing in this country need to know and have assurance about is that the local guys and girls do not have information about what is happening on the ground here that is not available to them. Basically, I think that is what we are trying to describe, however roughly, when we talk about insider information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI have always thought of it as information gained by a person who has an association with a company\u2014for example, as a member of the management or the board\u2014that is then used for personal gain. Using that information personally, even under our rather loose arrangements here, would probably get that person into trouble, but he or she can dodge that by telling someone else the information and having that person undertake the transactions in his or her name, on the basis that when a tidy profit is made both share the proceeds. That is all part and parcel of the kind of mischief this bill sets out to overcome.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c66ffeb48994c07ad88e609137d0b9e\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s illegal now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226313df8627974af8ae873f69fdc53743\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that it is illegal at the moment. I think the case being taken at the moment against David Richwhite, and the former chief executive of New Zealand Rail, and some other former board members is about the sort of behaviour that everybody says is conceptually quite unacceptable. When people see individuals who quite clearly are on the inside of a company, and who have information that the rest of the market does not have, using that information to make unconscionably large sums of money in short periods of time to line their own pockets, and when people look at the other side of the ledger and realise that others who put their money into the same company at the same time are now significantly disadvantaged, sometimes to the point of having very significant losses, they can plainly see that that is quite wrong and needs to be stopped. I hope that prosecution will go ahead and deliver some messages to others who might be tempted to go down that route.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI want to agree, though, with what Stephen Franks said, which was that generally the level of honesty and ethics in New Zealand markets is very good. However, there have been a number of rogue people. Some of them have gone right over the boundary into fraud, and have ended up in prison. But in some ways it is just as bad to defraud people of funds in other ways, simply through using information that one has gained as an insider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI think that is the big picture. What we are trying to do with this bill is put together a regime that basically gives people living in New York, and investing in a New Zealand company on the New Zealand stock exchange, reasonable assurance that they are playing on a level playing field. We have Internet access these days, which means that people in New York are able to have as much information about a New Zealand company as the locals do, and that is fine. We simply need to give that kind of assurance, so that we can encourage free and open markets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe other thing this bill does is change the conceptual framework around insider trading from the former understanding that it was a breach of duty to the company, to say now that it is actually a breach of duty to the market itself. I think that is a step in the right direction. When I did my commerce degree and studied commercial law\u2014a long time ago now\u2014companies in New Zealand were not able to buy their own shares. Therefore, if one was using insider information gained as an insider of the company, one was also breaching a duty to that company. That has all changed; companies can now buy their own shares, so it is now possible for a company itself to breach insider-trading concepts by utilising information that disadvantages the other participants in the market. The proposed change, I think, needs to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI am not quite as negative, I think, as the member Stephen Franks\u2014and I certainly bow to his expertise in this area. I do not interpret the exceptions quite as he understands them. My understanding is that there will be exceptions for legitimate, market-efficient activity such as research and analysis. By that, my understanding is that people are still free to use their wits and their brains to figure out information about trends in a company, market research, and all those kinds of things, in order to make an informed decision about whether an investment is a good investment or a lousy one. They have no obligation to tell anybody else about that, and I do not think that flows from this bill, at all. What the bill is trying to say is that that kind of activity is fine, and clearly is not, in any sense, insider trading or insider information, because it is information obtained by, if one likes, outsiders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003ESo I think the exceptions are right and proper, but they are imperfect. We have this curious thing, which everybody talks about, called Chinese walls. I know that Stephen Franks will be very familiar with that concept. Somehow we kid ourselves that people working in the research division of a stockbroking firm, for example, who find out information will not tell it to another member of the firm who might have an interest in that information. I know that some of the big professional firms do try to maintain these Chinese walls, and they have quite strict rules about them, but I think it is sometimes a bit of a stretch of the imagination to think they work quite as well as that. Stephen Franks is probably right that what actually happens is that the market sorts these things out itself and adopts some standard practice. I think that as long as that is fair and reasonable there is no problem, but there is a point beyond which it should not go. When it goes over that point\u2014and here I very much agree with Stephen Franks\u2014it is important to prosecute and make examples of those people. That in itself basically sends a message to others that it could happen to them, and that in itself restrains people and encourages them to act honestly, sensibly, and ethically, which is what we are trying to do here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIt is therefore very important that a new range of penalties is brought in, and new powers are given to the Securities Commission and the Takeovers Panel so that they are armed with a comprehensive and flexible range of penalties and remedies, which they can apply on a case by case basis. That seems to me to be a very sensible approach. The other things in the bill that I also think are good include the tightening-up of the investment adviser and investment broker law. It is important that people holding themselves out as experts are actually experts, and that they make appropriate disclosures to people before they induce them to part with what might sometimes be almost their lifetime\u2019s savings into the hands of a stranger who claims to have great knowledge and expertise in investing. I think that is a welcome step in the right direction, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EOverall, and as others have said, I hope the Commerce Committee will go into the nitty-gritty detail of this bill, and ensure that it remains on track in terms of common sense, that it does not stray into overkill, but that we get it right. With that trust in the select committee that will be looking at the bill, I signal United Future\u2019s support for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022 data-id=\u0022657deb8966084cf283a0de19ec344dc2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022657deb8966084cf283a0de19ec344dc2\u0022\u003EMOANA MACKEY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to rise to support the first reading of the Securities Legislation Bill. It is important that we do all we can to build confidence in New Zealand financial markets, in order to ensure that we are encouraging investment. Looking through this Securities Legislation Bill, I think that strengthening our regulatory framework, as is proposed in this bill, is an important step towards achieving that confidence, because the current laws are complex and difficult to enforce, as we have heard from the Minister in charge of the bill. Although not a reason in itself, the lack of prosecutions in New Zealand to date under the current law should be taken into consideration as an indication that maybe the current law in this area is inadequate. I look forward to seeing the work that the Commerce Committee does on this bill. It is good to see that it has wide-ranging support. It is important legislation, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u002202496257f52f4151b8fbaa8dd26750bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202496257f52f4151b8fbaa8dd26750bd\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E I was pleased to receive a call this evening to come down and participate in the debate on the Securities Legislation Bill. I would like to talk about the import of securities legislation to the performance of Ministers in the House. We have seen the performance of Ministers in the country today. The Prime Minister gives huff and puff about what she will do to the directors of Television New Zealand in terms of the impact they have had on various securities associated with Television New Zealand\u2014in particular, the payment of those securities to one Mrs Judy Bailey. We have all the huff and puff, and what happens? We have Steve Maharey on television parroting exactly what the chairman said to him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EIt is important that Ministers in this Government are particularly aware of what is being proposed in the securities legislation, because on numerous occasions Ministers in this Government have broken the basic rules of securities legislation. I will give a couple of examples.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261197c708a914162a8d6b1b6afe33708\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Always ready to give a cheap shot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a44973b70c804000a4a0e8fbdb0ea0d9\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, actually it is not a cheap shot; they were both very expensive shots that resulted from breaches of the Securities Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003ELet me just go through the first example. Jim Anderton, the then Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, appeared on the Holmes show to talk about the fact that he could fund Kiwibank through a redeemable preference share issue. A redeemable preference share issue was a proposal that had been floated by New Zealand Post, and a considerable amount of work was being done on it by Treasury, under both Governments. Mr Anderton was quite convinced that he could fund the growth of Kiwibank through the issue of some redeemable preference shares, which would be a security that would be listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. What he was not told was that it would have provided market disciplines that would have affected the operation of the whole company. But Mr Anderton was convinced about its worth, and because he likes to pretend to be informed, he said on television that there could be redeemable preference shares, and that they would be a really good deal. He scuttled the whole thing over night. Those few words on the Holmes show stopped the deal with New Zealand Post to issue redeemable preference shares, because Mr Anderton broke a basic premise of the securities legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWhen National was last in Government, and was working with Mr Peters, as Treasurer, to privatise Auckland International Airport\u2014and, he, as Treasurer, signed the prospectus for privatising Auckland International Airport\u2014we were under very clear legal advice that we could say nothing about that security. Mr Peters, who as Treasurer was privatising Auckland International Airport, could say nothing about the sale of Auckland International Airport shares in terms of what benefit there might be to shareholders. Similar restrictions applied to the other wildly successful privatisations of Contact Energy and Capital Properties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EHere is the second breach of the Securities Act. It involves the Prime Minister and Air New Zealand. She gave a television interview and made a statement about the likely future of Air New Zealand and the value of its shares. She said that people should hang on to them. That had an immediate impact on the share price. If that was not a breach of the securities legislation, then nothing is. So if Labour members want to bemoan the fact that there have been no prosecutions as a result of breaches of the Securities Act, they should wonder why the Prime Minister was not prosecuted. Mind you, we have seen \u201Cpaintergate\u201D and now \u201Cmotorcade\u201D, and in both cases the Prime Minister has not faced any prosecution whatsoever. My point is this. It is vital that Ministers know what is in this securities legislation, because they have a history of breaching those regulations. They need to be aware of the legislation so that they do not do that again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EQuite a lot of good information was given by Brian Connell earlier in the debate about the importance of making sure that the remedy is not worse than the illness. The criticism I made of the last piece of securities legislation that came into the House, which I see the Government has tried to remedy, was about the quite superficial analysis of the regulatory impact statement. It is quite superficial. There are very few numbers. There is a sort of calculation about how much it will cost to get an exemption from the Securities Commission. But the analysis is very poor, and it does not include the impact on the costs of the general purchaser of securities. I would have thought that would be quite an important feature of any analysis that would be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe third issue I would like to talk about is the fact that there is nothing in this legislation to deal with one of the major crises with securities in this country that the Government is doing nothing about, and that is the number of people who sold their houses to trusts and companies, which would then provide them with the security of an income stream as a result of the transfer of the title of their houses. I have people in my electorate, as will most members, who were approached by promoters, by investment advisers, who said that if they gave them their title to their homes, they would in turn give them a guaranteed income stream for the next 3 years\u2014that they would use that title to issue securities and create money in order to pay them. Hundreds and hundreds of people have fallen for that scam.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a27dd37716f9466cba02be2bd1234b5a\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: And lawyers have let them do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbc441ceada2493ea44fbe131f1d58bf\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: Lawyers and investment advisers have let them do it. In fact, I tell Mr Jones that most of those people did not see their lawyers, and that was the problem. Most of them did not see their lawyers, and they were sucked in by those investment advisers, those promoters of these securities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EIt does not seem that the Government is doing much on that. I have made some inquiries of the Ministers involved, and there is no sense of urgency to assist those people to recover their homes. There is no action being taken by the Securities Commission that I am aware of to help those people get back their homes. They have been ripped off by people holding out false securities, and the Securities Commission should be in there boots and all\u2014not just saying that they are trusts and it is all too difficult. It has been going on for 3 years now, and nothing has been happening. If the Securities Commission and this Government are determined to have some prosecutions, they should prosecute those people who have ripped off the homes of people\u2014tradespeople, blue-collar people, ordinary New Zealanders\u2014who have scrimped and saved for 40 years to get a house, then are sucked in by some conman. But the Government does nothing to assist them. We need, in terms of this legislation, to find out from the next Government speaker what will be done about the securities issued to those people in various parts of the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EAlso, there are a number of questions to be answered by Ministers about the role of investment advisers. The Government has a couple of options in the bill about how to deal with investment advisers. One is the quite stringent disclosure regime set out in the legislation, and the alternative is the use of occupational licensing. What is an investment adviser? Is it the individual who provides the investment advice, or is it the company or the sharebroker for which that individual works? The Government needs to realise that increasing numbers of people are handing over their financial security to investment advisers. There are considerable questions to be asked about the backgrounds of many of these people. Most who are high profile, for example, are perfectly legitimate investment advisers who deal with people\u2019s retirement savings and their life-savings, but others need further investigation. The issue of whether the adviser is the individual or the company has significant impact, as well. A burden and an onus needs to be put on the employers of investment advisers to make sure that their investment advisers are performing within an appropriate standard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EIn summary, my contribution today is to highlight to Ministers that they themselves need to know what is in this bill, rather than their just reading the departmental speech. Ministers deal with securities every day, depending on their responsibilities. We have seen the Prime Minister breach the Securities Act. We have seen Jim Anderton prevent the issuance of securities, because of something he said. It is important that once this bill is passed Ministers are given a lesson on what not to say and what they can say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022bca413fbae424948a5fd84d57b569517\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bca413fbae424948a5fd84d57b569517\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a brief call in the first reading, which will refer the Securities Legislation Bill to the Commerce Committee. It is an omnibus bill that amends the Securities Act, the Securities Markets Act, and the Takeovers Act, as well as the Takeovers Code, so I am quite comfortable with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002266aa4ef9a2db411a8b73d1adc38110af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266aa4ef9a2db411a8b73d1adc38110af\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E As comfortable as the junior Government whip may be with this bill, there is a little bit more to it than he has told the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed63c05b3fe74b57a2e79af18668f959\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Leave it to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b815d6a8175642efbab00853ea906c5d\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it could be left to the select committee. However, this bill, apart from the explanatory note, has 134 pages. To expect the Opposition parties in this House just to concede this debate on Wednesday at 11.28 p.m. is far too much for this Labour Government to expect. As my colleague Brent Catchpole said in his very fine speech, in this particular legislation one finds that investors breaching insider-trading laws face up to 5 years in jail under sweeping new proposals to beef up the law. However, up until now, no one has been found liable for insider trading since the Act came into effect. So it is bit of a pyrrhic piece of legislation, if the penalties are all increased but no one at this stage has ever been found guilty of anything in terms of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EResearch has shown that enforceable insider-trading laws could increase trading volumes so the need to beef up our insider-trading legislation becomes apparent. They say that insider-trading laws are complicated, difficult to enforce, and easy to avoid. The Government hopes that this bill will deter misconduct in the markets and make New Zealand a more attractive investment destination. What is this Government\u2019s solution? Just bring in an Australian-type model. And really, why must we copy Australia? There have been any number of commentators on the New Zealand situation who have said that there is no need for us to mimic Australia\u2014why can we not do something that is more appropriate to New Zealand? I would expect that that is one of the things that the select committee would have a good look at. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EFor example, I note that the Securities Commission general counsel, Liam Mason, has said that the bill would give the commission more power to take action in situations where previously only investors had been able to, and the commission would have simpler and firmer laws and more powers to enforce them. But once again, so far no one has been convicted in New Zealand. Of course, when we look at the Australian situation and what has happened over there, only the flamboyant stockbroker\u2014as the person was described\u2014Rene Rivkin has been jailed for insider trading in Australia during the past 10 years. The threat of jail, in addition to a fine, can only give those contemplating the use of inside knowledge an extra incentive to pause for thought. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EBut of course the real problem I guess is the test that is imposed in order to find someone liable under this legislation. While the test remains that of \u201Cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201D, clearly it will be very difficult to find someone guilty. Of course as Stephen Franks has indicated in his speech, if people have come to an arrangement, then there is no encouragement for them to take the matter to the Securities Commission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe other test that is usually available in civil law is a test of the balance of probabilities. As a member of New Zealand First\u2014a party that really likes to get tough on people who try to rip off the community\u2014I have to wonder whether consideration could be given to putting in an easier test to find someone liable, such as the test of balance of probabilities. I hope the select committee will give some thought to this. I can see Mr Brent Catchpole nodding. I am sure he will give some thought as to whether a balance of probabilities test is possible. That will give the committee something to think about, rather than it being fairly comfortable with the present situation, which is very, very hard to prove. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EHow is it proved? We have the Securities Commission and the evidence that is necessary there. What about the funds available to the Securities Commission? I understand that currently the commission has a total budget of $7 million. I am told that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has a budget of A$191 million. Depending on when one considers the translation of money values, that is close to NZ$200 million today. One cannot get much for $7 million. It has been a struggle in Australia to get even one conviction on a $200 million budget. I have to ask whether this is really a waste of time, in so far as insider trading is concerned. Are we just throwing money away? Do we perhaps have to change the test to try to achieve a result with the present lack of resources and the very high test that is required? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIs the Government really serious? Are the stock exchange and the people who want to curb these problems really serious? I see, for example, that someone at Chapman Tripp has said: \u201CThese new powers do have the potential to curb the enthusiasm of offerers, targets, major shareholders, and certainly their PR advisers.\u201D I am quoting Roger Wallace, a securities lawyer at Chapman Tripp.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EEven that is set out in modest legal terms. That is just the potential. He is not saying that we are going to catch them now; he just says that the powers have the potential to curb enthusiasm. Clearly, we are not approaching this particular problem\u2014if there is one\u2014with enough resources for the Securities Commission. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESome of the issues mentioned by Tony Ryall were those I was interested in considering. I was looking at page 58 of the explanatory note and wanting to discuss the question regarding investment advisers and brokers. It seems so easy today to throw up one\u2019s shingle or sign and call oneself an investment adviser or investment broker. All those companies seem to have people working for them, going out, and giving advice. What really needs to be done is to make sure that the people who part with their money get a real indication of whether they will actually make any sort of profit on the transaction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ETime and time again, as we all know, it is only the company that makes any money. It is only the investment adviser who makes any money. It is only the investment broker who makes any money. Often people who put their money into these transactions do not even get their capital back, and the whole situation is not good enough in so far as the simple blue-collar tradesman is concerned, as mentioned earlier by Tony Ryall. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI will skip over that, because I want to discuss a couple of other issues before time runs out. The bill is such a big one that one would think we would have more time on it, rather than it being rushed through in this way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI was interested in the takeovers asset threshold on page 52 of the explanatory note, and the question of compliance costs arises. It is good how in legislation today, efforts are made to try to set out what those costs may be. On page 48 of the explanatory note we read: \u201CFor a person taking over a company newly caught by the provisions, the total additional costs are estimated to be between $40,000 and $75,000, depending on the size of the company and the complexity of legal and independent merits advice required.\u201D Those of us who have relatives or friends working in the banking and corporate law business will feel that this is another Christmas present to lawyers and advisers. Here, quite baldly, is an additional $40,000 to $75,000 available, depending on the size of the transaction. Under the heading \u201CTakeovers Act asset threshold\u201D on page 52 it states: \u201Cthe compliance costs associated with making a takeover bid under the Takeovers Code are estimated to be approximately $15,000 to $35,000 for legal advice (depending on the complexity of the takeover) and approximately $8,000 to $13,000 for mailing and printing costs:\u201D. With $8,000 to $13,000 for printing costs, obviously there is a lot of money to be made in these areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis bill is a very complicated piece of legislation, comprising 130-odd pages. I am confident that the select committee will give full consideration to it. We look forward to the submissions that will be made available to the select committee, and the very many amendments that will inevitably be made. I am concerned, of course, that once again the Government has put up some legislation that, in order to make it easy in the Committee stage, is drafted in only a couple of parts. For lawyers who have to try to understand the legislation when it comes out, it will be pretty difficult for them to follow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4367fb37a0642d58f07051ae1c20bf7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4367fb37a0642d58f07051ae1c20bf7\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts):\u003C/span\u003E That member spoke so brilliantly that he has worn me down. I accept that the bill should be supported by this House, and I commend it to every member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022620d59108d2545dca1b9d929e8fab6cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022620d59108d2545dca1b9d929e8fab6cc\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Securities Legislation Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002273f21a031e1a4a00995d10d86ef41ddc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 106\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002223ecc39ac21d4ead8a207f719e629e8a\u0022\u003E Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dfa1ebdab1b548259466b72eb0d5b9d7\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe14bd4d687d4b0a95ac98f0cf5f5785\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe14bd4d687d4b0a95ac98f0cf5f5785\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. I shall be recommending to the House later that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThis omnibus taxation bill is the second to be introduced this year. Like its March predecessor, the bill reflects the priorities of the Government\u2019s tax policy work programme. That includes promoting growth and innovation, making the tax system easier for businesses to work with, reducing compliance costs, and protecting the revenue base. Protecting the revenue base is the single most important theme of the present bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe centrepiece of the bill is the introduction of new rules to ensure that foreign-owned banks, which constitute most of the banking business in New Zealand, pay sufficient tax on their New Zealand income. A notable trend has emerged recently that the growth in the profits of foreign-owned banks operating here is not reflected in their payments of New Zealand tax. The reported profits of the financial sector have been going up, but the proportion of the tax paid by the sector has been going down. At the Government\u2019s request, tax policy officials reviewed the tax laws relating to banks to see whether they needed to be more robust. It has emerged that the banks can use certain features of our international tax laws, such as the conduit rules, to reduce the amount of tax they pay in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EUnder present law, banks can use interest deductions arising from an excessive level of debt to reduce the portion of their income that is subject to tax in New Zealand. That works in two ways. First, the cross-border financing arrangements for outbound investments, which have generally been funded by debt, have generated income that effectively is not subject to New Zealand tax under current law. Second, under the current law there is potential for banks to substitute debt for equity in financing their New Zealand businesses for the use of holding companies and bank branches. That results in their New Zealand business being thinly capitalised for tax purposes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe changes introduced in this bill will provide robust thin-capitalisation rules that ensure that the income of banks cannot be sheltered by interest deductions arising from excessive debt. Under the proposed rules, foreign-owned banks will be denied interest deductions if they do not hold a level of capital or equity equivalent to 4 percent of their New Zealand banking assets, weighted for risk. They will also be required to have enough capital in New Zealand on which no interest is deductible to fully fund their offshore investments. That means that banks will be prevented from using the expenses associated with this income as a deduction against their New Zealand income. As I announced in September, the proposed changes could result in foreign-owned banks paying as much as $360 million a year more in New Zealand tax, assuming current levels of bank profitability\u2014which is probably, I think it is fair to say, about the biggest free hit any Government has ever got out of taxation with no impact upon the New Zealand economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMembers will have seen media reference to the Inland Revenue Department\u2019s audit activity that has resulted in some banks being reported as disputing their contingent tax liability. Obviously, that is an issue between banks and the Inland Revenue Department and is separate from the legislation proposed in this bill. Under the law, I, as Minister of Revenue, have no part in such investigations of specific taxpayers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EAs another measure to protect the tax base, the bill amends the dividend imputation rules to ensure that in certain circumstances when a company is sold, the benefits of any prepaid tax will stay with the original group that paid the tax and cannot be transferred to the shareholders of another group. The amendments are aimed at companies that have no immediate expectation of being liable for income tax but that prepay tax to impute dividends to shareholders and then engage in transactions to have the prepaid tax refunded to them. Once enacted, that revenue protection measure will apply from today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill also introduces a number of changes that improve the operation and effectiveness of tax law in other areas. It introduces several changes to the tax depreciation rules to improve their operation and reduce associated compliance costs to business taxpayers. Included are changes to the tax depreciation treatment of patents and the special tax depreciation rate rules, additions to the list of the depreciable intangible property, and extended deductibility for losses on buildings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill also clarifies and explains the rules on tax deductibility for business environmental expenditure, such as the cost of preventing, remedying, or mitigating the discharge of contaminants. The current rules are rife with uncertainty about the existing scope of tax deductions that are available for environmental expenditure, and I am told that some environmental costs may not, indeed, be deductible for tax purposes. Allowing environmental costs to be taken into account for tax purposes, as other business costs are, will ensure the correct calculation of taxation on income from business activities. The changes will also remove disincentives for undertaking environmental expenditure and encourage businesses to be more environmentally responsible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EAnother part of the bill simply clarifies the income tax rules on transfer of assets and liabilities to beneficiaries when someone dies. I emphasise that those changes affect only assets and liabilities that are already in the tax base, such as buildings on which depreciation is being claimed and land on which the gain is taxable. It is not some attempt to back-door smuggle in some new death duties. The current law in that area is unclear, and over the years there have been repeated calls from the taxation industry for reform of the rules. Uncertainty also surrounds the tax treatment of in-kind distributions of assets from trusts, estates, and companies, as well as gifts of all kinds. To add greater certainty and consistency, the bill introduces comprehensive rules that provide a uniform income tax treatment of these asset transfers, both for those who transfer assets and for recipients. Those policy announcements have already been warmly welcomed by taxation professionals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill also introduces statutory privilege, or a right not to disclose certain documents relating to tax advice provided by tax advisers such as chartered accountants. Although it will be subject to a number of exclusions, it will place the status of communications from non-legal tax advisers, such as accountants, closer to that of the tax advice provided by lawyers, who do not have to disclose their advice to the Inland Revenue Department. Advisers such as accountants should also be able to give candid and independent advice to their clients without having to disclose it to the Inland Revenue Department. The benefit of enabling this to occur is that legal and accounting advice will be treated in a similar way. In both cases such advice can promote voluntary compliance with the tax system and thus help to reduce compliance and administrative costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill introduces a temporary 6-year tax exemption on income earned from non-resident drilling rigs and seismic ships involved in exploration for petroleum in New Zealand. The measure removes a tax obstacle to gas exploration in New Zealand and is part of a package of measures announced in June to boost gas exploration here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThose are the main features of this wide-ranging taxation bill. They and other changes proposed in the bill are described in detail in the separate 74-page commentary that has been distributed to all members of the House, and which I recommend they read. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00226eaaf8c7c765407b93e6498de469a913\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226eaaf8c7c765407b93e6498de469a913\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I agree with the Minister that this legislation is extremely significant to New Zealand, and some of the implications the Minister has talked about and are referred to in the commentary will be far-reaching. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe bill is divided into three significant areas, which I want to address. The first deals with the thin-capitalisation rules for foreign-owned banks. As the Minister pointed out\u2014maybe not in as much detail as I would have liked\u2014this is the method, or deception, of loading excessive debt to hide the amount of equity to support assets, and that has significant tax implications. As much as it pains me to say it, having worked for Westpac Banking Corporation for some time and seeing that it is now in the sights of the Minister of Revenue in relation to this, I do believe that the bank may have a case to answer. The practice of debt loading to disguise the true equity position goes back 15-odd years. As I was reminded yesterday when I met some Westpac executive and board members, some very fine people are engaged in that institution right now who had no part in what has transpired. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI want to be on the record as making it very clear that that bank and some of the other foreign-owned banks have not been involved, as has been alleged by the Minister, in anything illegal. Essentially they used the law as it was drafted, and thus were able to enhance profitability to their shareholders on the other side of the Tasman. I agree with the Minister that the loophole needs to be closed. Hundreds of millions of dollars have run out of New Zealand into the Australian economy and to Australian banks and shareholders, and New Zealand shareholders, to some degree, have been left exposed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe issue at hand is one that will reap the Government an extra $300-odd million, and some of it will be retrospective\u2014some of the legislation will apply retrospectively. I have two issues of concern on this. The first is that the Minister and his Government will now have an extra $300 million to put into their coffers\u2014money they never expected to have\u2014and I expect the Minister to rebate that by way of tax deduction to the hard-working Kiwis who have contributed to the $6.5 billion surplus the Minister is so pleased to talk about, ad infinitum. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe second issue that concerns me is the retrospective nature of some of the legislation. Legislation that applies retrospectively\u2014[Interruption] The member should sober up and listen. The National Party is strongly opposed in principle to legislation that applies retrospectively. It should not be happening. When the bill goes to the select committee, we will run a very clear rule of thumb over that. I look to some of the other members of the House for support on this, because it is a very, very dangerous principle. This Minister has an insatiable appetite for taxation, and that is something that bothers me. He is very good at spending other people\u2019s money, and now that he will get a windfall of an extra $300 million, he will be put on notice by the National Party that it is time to cut taxation for the productive sector that has contributed to the surplus I talked about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EAnother issue I want to talk about is the amendments to introduce temporary exemptions. I see from the commentary that that relates to 6 years of income earned by foreign companies for offshore surveys for possible petroleum fields. That type of tax incentive, to support our natural resources and infrastructure development\u2014a foreign concept for this Minister\u2014is a very good initiative. That New Zealand is exposed in terms of its petroleum resources and its inability, as it were, to attract foreign capital into a very capital intensive and capital hungry area around petroleum development is not in doubt. We need to think a little bit more laterally than is suggested here. I would like the select committee to look at the wider application of this suggested amendment, because I believe that any infrastructure development for which we need to attract large amounts of capital is something that could have application to what is being suggested. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is in a dire position in terms of infrastructure and development. In particular, I am thinking about our ability to generate energy or electricity. Our energy resources are running out, and our ability to generate electricity is hurting our ability to attract foreign investment to our country. As National\u2019s spokesperson on forestry, amongst other things, I am confronted with this issue nearly every day from organisations that are looking at opportunities to invest here. They have the same mantra when they talk to me\u2014that New Zealand is a good place to grow trees, that we need to get involved in the processing market, and that the two things that concern them deeply are the Resource Management Act and the uncertainty of electricity supply. Anything this bill can do, and any wider application of what it suggests, will get the National Party\u2019s support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe third area I want to speak about relates to the amendments that will allow deductions for expenditure incurred by business in avoiding, remedying, or mitigating detrimental effects on the environment from the discharge of contaminants. I find I also agree with that. We have a pristine environment in this country that we as New Zealanders are all very proud of. But it is not something we should take for granted. Anything we can do to maintain that environment will get National Party support, provided the cost does not outweigh the benefits. That is an issue the select committee will look at, and I will ask it to reflect on whether the medicine is worse than the illness itself. Conceptually, what is being suggested in this legislation is very sound, constructive, and sensible. I think that all large organisations\u2014and most of the organisations in this country are responsible corporate citizens\u2014will look at their ability to mitigate any environmental effects, and if they can work in partnership with the Government to achieve that, then I think we will find they are very responsive to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, the three major initiatives suggested in this bill go to the select committee with the National Party\u2019s endorsement, but on the very clear proviso that we will look to see what devil is in the detail. A practice of this Government has been to put in place solutions that are not cost effective, and we need to be very mindful of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022914b8c89e4e0424b9c12e73bde534624\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022914b8c89e4e0424b9c12e73bde534624\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E There are many important parts to this omnibus bill, but some in particular will appeal to my constituents. One of those\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ccfae2abfa44df78e204f7fbf0e1640\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: Name one\u2014the only one!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f987b55d42694c9d9ef6232ec761406d\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS\u003C/span\u003E: I tell the member to settle down, it is late. One issue in the bill that will appeal to my constituents is the introduction of new regulations to ensure that foreign-owned banks pay their proper share of tax on their New Zealand income. I think that everybody in this House would see that as a good thing. Even Mr Connell\u2019s constituents would see that as a good thing. This is part of the Government\u2019s commitment to a fair and just taxation system, and I look forward to seeing this bill when it is reported back from the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022caed42815fc847a8a0c67dd6578190ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022caed42815fc847a8a0c67dd6578190ed\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to this first reading of the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I start off by referring to the amendments to the Income Tax Act 1994 regarding foreign-owned banks. We have been told tonight that foreign-owned banks have not paid around $360 million in tax that should have been paid to this Government, or to the Government of the day. I find that sad, for a couple of reasons. It is incredibly sad not only that have we sold off these banks to foreign-owned enterprises but that, for quite some time, not even the Government of the day\u2014whatever Government it is\u2014has been able to collect the appropriate amount of tax the banks are supposed to be paying. I think everyone in this House agrees\u2014I do not think anybody would disagree\u2014that everybody, whether a company, an individual, or a small business, should, no matter what the tax rate is, pay the appropriate amount of tax stipulated by law. It is very sad that for some time now banks have not been paying the appropriate amount of tax because of some loopholes they have been able to find in the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EI listened to the tax officials some time ago now. From memory, they said that this situation has been going on for about 3 to 5 years, but the Minister can correct me if I am wrong on that. When we calculate it up, that is a lot of money\u2014money that could be going back into the pockets of our small-business owners, exporters, and small export businesses through tax concessions, tax abatement schemes, and things like that. Whatever we call it, and in whatever way we could have done it, that money could have been channelled back into taxpayers\u2019 pockets. I find it incredibly sad that the banks not only were not paying the appropriate amount of tax but were\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284cd37738de84faf976a01340afd324b\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214eeaae01245ee46e1a68c6b83376b6d3b001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224841dea43691449388f5a912b72e2aec\u0022\u003ETuesday, 14 December 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c69846ca783643aabeb26903fb68614a\u0022\u003E(continued on Friday, 17 December 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225b875bda04e8417bbd1684a6c01a0b47\u0022\u003ETaxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d7250824949c43efa6616db1acb08f36\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7e8b208c41e457582e58c8c9eee7e55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7e8b208c41e457582e58c8c9eee7e55\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Last night, before being interrupted, I was talking about foreign-owned banks and the sad, sad situation that we have in this country whereby, all of a sudden and all because of past Labour and National administrations, different State-owned enterprises were flogged off to foreign-owned enterprises. One example of that is our banks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022983b0fbc42fb497fbdac14fce2047911\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton\u003C/span\u003E: Disgusting!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8e30181f4fc401d9e3101ac60030af5\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: As my colleague seated behind me said, it was disgusting\u2014nothing more and nothing less than that. But the sad thing about it was that successive Labour and National Governments not only sold the banks to foreign-owned enterprises but the banks then did not even pay the appropriate amount of tax that they should have paid. I say that that is a disgrace. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b655022db9f8485384952735a5139d1c\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member a Kiwibank customer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5c4986fd41a4d9783a4c9e4055d8cec\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: I remind members that there is actually another New Zealand - owned bank in this country, as well as Kiwibank. With the sad loss of our now foreign-owned banks, which the then Deputy Prime Minister sold off back in the mid-1980s and the National Government sold off in the 1990s, we then had that situation. I remember speaking to taxation advisers a few months ago and they said that the situation has been going on for 5 years or so, and that a taxation shortfall of something like $360 million has been occurring. I say that that is very, very sad. It is a tragedy for our nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EThis Government would have us believe we have an economic boom in this country, when it is taxing individuals at up to 39c in the dollar in income tax if they are the so-called rich people on about $60,000 a year. The tax is 33c in the dollar for companies, and there are no taxation incentives or concessions for exporters, especially when the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar is at 70c against the US dollar. There is no economic boom, I believe, like the one that this Government would have us believe is occurring. The Minister of Finance and other Ministers in this House jump up and down and tell us how great everything is, when they know that that is a load of hogwash in many ways. Our dollar is worth 70c against the US dollar, and we have houses that young couples cannot get into or buy because the prices are too far beyond their reach. First home buyers\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ab46959dd1e4242b09af9b6e4203fa8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that got to do with the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265644392c07849bb950947fce49f4ba3\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it has a lot to do with this bill\u2014[Interruption] That is right. It is just unbelievable how relevant it is to this bill. When we talk about taxation and the amount of taxation that people are paying, and when we look at the banks I have just talked about that have not been paying a sum that the Minister of Finance has said is about $360 million a year for a few years now, we know that it has every relevance to this bill. It is very, very relevant, and that is a fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003EDo members know why I want to talk about this bill? I want to talk about something that is very important regarding the vision of this Government. It all comes back to this kind of legislation that come through the House\u2014the taxation bills. We are continually sliding down the OECD rankings. Australia is way ahead of us in those rankings, and the Minister knows it. The average Australian earns about $120 a week more than the average Kiwi. That has every relevance to this bill, because if the average New Zealander earns $120 a week less than the average Australian, then the Government and individuals here in New Zealand are both worse off than their Australian counterparts. That Minister, with all his intellect and wit, still knows that that is right. He knows that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcf898e371c04d9a93e139c60002181e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcf898e371c04d9a93e139c60002181e\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the Hon Richard Prebble for again deferring to me his place in the speaking order. In fact, in honour of Richard Prebble I decided today to wear my Fraser Institute tie from Canada. I was privileged to speak to the Fraser Institute last year on taxation and other matters, and particularly on MMP. I paid homage to Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas, because both of their portraits were on the wall of honour of august gentlemen at that institute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cbdb83dedd14f86ac84db3609b19d56\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Now could we come to the point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f2148547c5c42aaa011e06d5d8c56ee\u0022\u003EROD DONALD\u003C/span\u003E: I am just about to narrow the debate, but this is a valedictory to Richard Prebble. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to allow me one more sentence. I paid honour to Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas, because I said that without them New Zealand would not have MMP, and without MMP I would not have been there to speak to the institute about the excellent policies that the Greens promote in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIn speaking of excellent policies, I would like to say that the Green Party will be supporting the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, because there are some very good features in it. We do have some disappointments with it, but I will come to those in a moment. The very good features are, of course, the ones around the thin capitalisation rules for foreign-owned banks, because for too long those banks have got away with not paying their fair share of tax in New Zealand. I am all in favour of Dr Cullen having a bigger money bag with which to invest in sustainable infrastructure and to be able to invest more in human capital, particularly in our young people through taxpayer-funded tertiary education. So if Dr Cullen is able to rake in, I think, $360 million from foreign-owned banks that they have not, but should have, been paying, that is a very good thing and something that we look forward to supporting as this bill progresses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EIt is also worth noting, when talking about banks, that I am pleased to see that the Reserve Bank has finally told Westpac that it needs to set up a proper bank in New Zealand, instead of running its New Zealand operation like some sort of branch operation out of Australia. Too many of New Zealand\u2019s business enterprises are run like branches out of Australia, and we have to reverse that trend. In the same way, we have to make sure that our Government does not become the equivalent of an Australian state operation, as happens under Food Standards Australia New Zealand and some of the other bodies set up in recent times. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe other particularly good measure in this bill relates to business environmental expenditure. The Greens are very pleased to see that the Government will be addressing concerns raised with regard to the tax deductions available for that expenditure. Anything that is done to remedy or mitigate the detrimental effects of the discharge of contaminants is something that should be encouraged, and that is a step forward with regard to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOur concern focuses on the Government\u2019s \u201Cdrill and hope\u201D strategy. Yet again the Government is trying to encourage more drilling\u2014in this case by offering tax exemptions for a period of 6 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ded542b947ef4516be63437bd765a853\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s wrong with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225269b425024c4f3d9399634d38fcf4ef\u0022\u003EROD DONALD\u003C/span\u003E: What is wrong with that is the opportunity cost. We would much prefer any tax incentives for energy generation to be focused on renewable energy, so that we can do more to encourage wind generation. I know that the Minister has already done his bit to enable Mr Hodgson to spend a considerable sum of money via carbon credits on encouraging the development of wind energy in New Zealand, and that is a good thing. We can see the result of the Government\u2019s excellent commitment to the Kyoto Protocol come through in terms of all the new wind farms that are being announced. There seems to be one new wind farm a week at the moment, which just shows that the Government does have a commitment to renewable energy. But that is not enough. We would like more effort to be put into renewables. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ESo instead of the Government offering tax incentives for a \u201Cdrill and hope\u201D strategy to try to find more oil and gas, it should be putting more in the way of tax incentives and direct investment into solar energy, and into energy efficiency and conservation. The gains are guaranteed in those areas. We know that we could save between 20 percent and 30 percent of our electricity generation through conservation and efficiency measures. That is not a case of hoping we will discover some oil or gas; it is a case of knowing there is energy that can be saved if only we make the capital investment. That is something that the Government could do directly, as well as encouraging the private sector through tax incentives to invest capital in the efficiency measures that will have pay-offs not just for those companies but for the country as a whole. That is an area that we will debate strongly at the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EHowever, overall, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill is a positive one. It does not go as far as we would like it to go. We think this is the sort of bill that should have been called the \u201CTaxation (Carbon Tax, Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill\u201D. This bill would have been the opportunity for the Government to bring forward the carbon tax that it says it will introduce in 2007. Why should we wait until 2007? Let us have a carbon tax in 2005, and let us move towards a more sustainable infrastructure. Let us bring in a tax that is vitally necessary to send the right signals to the marketplace about the need to move away from a fossil fuel economy and towards a sustainable economy, particularly in relation to transport infrastructure. If the carbon tax had been introduced in this bill, it would have given the Government more revenue, which it could have then used to implement other Green polices, such as reducing the taxation on work and enterprise. We are very keen to see that, because we want the taxation base to shift towards encouraging good behaviour and discouraging bad behaviour. I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill at the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebfaa314556d4fd0870287b521694247\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebfaa314556d4fd0870287b521694247\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not think the Minister of Finance will mind my saying that he did suggest to me that the ACT party would find it difficult to criticise this bill. I suggested that we would have no difficulty in doing so, and I will show members why that is the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0d170f47f3b44d6815345ef5142dc66\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It wouldn\u2019t be under 2 percent, would it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022218755e839304bdaae575be6e94457e0\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The truth of a proposition does not depend on a party\u2019s poll rating, and it never has. So let me make statements that may not be populist but that make a number of criticisms. Firstly, let me explain what the bill is about. The bill has been introduced fundamentally because the trading banks have been quite legally able to reduce their income. The reason they can do that is that trading banks actually borrow large sums of money, and they are able to put up for taxation purposes the interest they pay on it. Now we are going to do away with that, which is interesting, because it means that the tax on banks will be different from that on other organisations. Fundamentally, from a taxation point of view, that is a bad principle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI understand the problem the Minister has, but there is actually a very, very simple answer to that problem. Banks are no different from individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022303b52be6c38482a97ab33e1c0f430fa\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E Lower the company rate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a7ae5cb1275470eb0ac328574ba98b7\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member. If we lower the company rate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e93dd83fdad5458e9dadab3e5cb4bbf4\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t mean to spoil the punch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221966cd39292146db8c34621c6b68da63\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, it is good to see that Mr Key is right on the job, and I am sure he has make this point already to the Minister\u2014[Interruption] Well, let me put this to the Minister of Finance. I have heard him get up in this House and say that New Zealand does not have a higher taxation rate than Australia\u2019s. If that were so, then all the Australian banks would be falling over themselves to pay tax in this country, rather than in Australia. But they are not, and that is another reason that this bill is wrong\u2014it does not actually fix the problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EBut let me go to another dilemma with regard to the bill. I will make a criticism of our taxation system generally, and it is this. An extra 115 pages are to be added to the\u2014what is it\u2014thousands of pages now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b55d3c2148db47739063dec7a508c303\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: Over 2,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ae4d8e2d14748198db7694bb9ae0288\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member; Mr Copland is an accountant. There are over 2,000 pages of taxation law. Why is that? The reason for that is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a99f3aaefbb7405aa7be8432f351833d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: How much is there in Australia? Over 10,000 pages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022548aa80b25974dce9385e365531a5838\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister interjects to say there are 10,000 pages in Australia. If he had not anticipated what I was going to say, he would have heard me explain to him what the problem is\u2014and it does exist right around the Western World. There is an attempt to artificially define income, so then one needs artificial laws. Then, when countries take as much in tax as they are taking, they need to have a huge tax code, and people cannot find their way around it. If we had a simple, flat rate of taxation, I say to the Minister we would then have a simple tax code. That is true in New Zealand and it would be true in Australia, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI want to make another criticism, and it is this. We find that those who are interested in civil liberties have set out what good principles are for the law, but, when it comes to taxation law, they completely ignore all civil liberties. One of the provisions of the bill, which is actually put forward as though it were a more liberalising measure, states that the amendments to the Tax Administration Act limit the right of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to require taxpayers and their tax advisers to provide documents that give instructions to the tax adviser or give tax advice to the taxpayer. Well, in a sense that is true, because the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, with his police State powers\u2014and they are police State powers\u2014has been able to force people to actually talk about private conversations they have had with New Zealanders who were trying to organise their affairs. If one is a civil libertarian, and if one does believe that citizens are entitled to organise their affairs, why is the State able to reach in with the sorts of powers that Nazi Germany would have been pleased to have? They are actually called Danzig laws, and they run right through our tax code, giving enormous power to the State. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIt is true that in this particular bill, in some ways that power is further limited. But I just invite members to look at what the Government now claims it has the right to do. A person must disclose tax-contextual information from a tax advice document. So if people have documents\u2014private documents\u2014about their private affairs that no one has the right to look at, the Government is now saying that they must give those documents to the Government, even if they do not want to. Even if a document has nothing to do with tax, a person still has to tell the Government why he or she wanted to obtain tax advice. A person may want to have tax advice because his wife is leaving him. He does not want to tell everybody that that is happening, but he must tell the Government. A person may want to get tax advice for personal reasons to do with a partnership he or she is in. That person has to tell the Government, and then has to trust it. Well, the Inland Revenue Department has a pretty good record of holding confidential information, but that still does not remove the personal embarrassment that people feel about having to disclose that sort of information. Why are we passing what we would regard in any other part of the law as an outrage and a violation of our rights as citizens? How can we call ourselves a free country, when we have a code that states that people must hand over personal, private documents that have nothing to do with tax, just in order to convince the tax department\u2014so that it can see the context in which a person was getting tax advice? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI say to the House that that is the inevitable result of the Government having an escalating taxation rate. If there is an escalating taxation rate we have to have police State powers. If the Government takes 40 percent\u2014[Interruption] I say to the Minister that they are police State powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f454174b88ef4155b048cba20c9a38cf\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The Russians had police State powers with a flat taxation rate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7b37fb1df754dc193be5c93c10868a8\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is true, but it does not\u2014[Interruption] The Minister says that the Russians had police State powers with a flat taxation rate. I am not saying that the only reason\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022750a93e0038e4367b4654e6409af7328\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The Russian tax police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d74a33a18b954b97accb8f9f96b57811\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister is capable of better logic than that. I am not saying that if we had a flat rate of taxation, it follows that we would not have police State powers. What I am saying is that in this country there are only two areas where we have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221203a392052946ecac37af4a113bb195\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Sub-machine guns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf6a718f31a840e694e9619b2558acd2\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Police State powers have nothing to do with sub-machine guns. Police State powers exist when a citizen is deemed to be guilty and has to prove himself or herself to be innocent. That is the situation right through the tax code. The State has the right to take information from a person when that person has broken no law, has been perfectly law-abiding, and has been going about his or her own personal, private affairs. Despite that, the Government can say it requires a person to disclose information, and if he or she does not do so there will be very, very heavy penalties. That is a police State. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIf we look at our tax code as a whole, we see it is a violation of all the proper principles of civil liberty. There are another 113 pages of that in this bill, and the solution, I say to the Minister, is to have a low, flat rate of taxation. We would then not need all these measures\u2014we would not need to have special laws for banks. One of the advantages of a low, flat rate of taxation, independent of the economic advantages that I believe are there\u2014the Minister does not believe that, although he cannot dispute this\u2014is that if we had a low, flat rate of taxation, New Zealand would be a freer country. We would have more civil liberties. We would have the sorts of things that I heard him and his colleagues talk about when they spoke so eloquently in favour of the Civil Union Bill. They talked about how people should be able to make their own choices, but when we come to 40 percent of the economy, which is the amount that the Government takes in tax, then all their concern about civil liberties goes out the window and the Government assumes that everyone in New Zealand is a criminal. That is why the ACT party will oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4d2e2f9bd954350904b0b9ff14d7215\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4d2e2f9bd954350904b0b9ff14d7215\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Outside of the somewhat artificial arrangements we have in this House, today\u2019s date is 17 December. Therefore, it is the 17th anniversary of 17 December 1987, on which date it was announced, rather breathlessly, to the nation that we would be adopting a flat tax rate. One of the other messages that was conveyed on that very notable occasion in the Beehive was that charities would start paying tax. Charities had not paid tax since 1601. It was notable from the point of view that suddenly an established position that had gone on for hundreds of years was to be overturned. I am very delighted to report today that the Charities Bill is being reported back to the House and it will confirm, going forward, the tax-exempt status of charities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIt is also a very notable date for me personally, because the day after those announcements were made on 17 December 1987 I became involved in a rearguard action to try to prevent charities from having to pay tax in New Zealand. I am very, very pleased indeed that we won that battle. It has taken a long time. I hope we will see, as a result of today\u2019s events, the taxation benefits for charities improved. [Interruption] I say to Mr Prebble that I look forward to seeing another bill come to the House\u2014sometime next year, hopefully\u2014that will create better tax conditions for that very, very important part of our society. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe principal thing that strikes me about this bill is the new rules on thin capitalisation for registered banks. I must say straight away that I was very disappointed indeed to discover that overseas-owned banks operating in New Zealand were not paying their fair whack of income tax. I always look at these positions from the point of view of, say, nurses who are working long hours in, say, the intensive care ward at Wellington Hospital to save people\u2019s lives and to improve the quality of people\u2019s health, and so on, and who pay their fair whack of tax in accordance with our tax laws. Quite frankly, I believe that on this occasion the overseas-owned banks working in New Zealand have displayed very, very poor citizenship. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EMr Prebble made the point yesterday that we welcome overseas investment in this country, and I do, as well. He then went on to say that there was no problem with overseas investors investing in New Zealand because they are the people who abide by the law. Generally speaking, I think that is probably true, but this is a significant exception to that rule. I am very, very surprised indeed\u2014[Interruption] I say to Mr Prebble that I have had the advantage of going through what has happened with the banks in this country in the last few years, and the way in which they have avoided paying their fair whack of income tax. It is a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue. It is as simple as that. It has no moral or ethical justification, and I am not prepared to come to this House and pretend that it has. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI congratulate the Government and the Inland Revenue Department on getting hold of this beast, which had got right out of control\u2014and it is simply intolerable to have that happening while nurses, schoolteachers, and others pay their full whack of tax. By the way, they have no opportunity to do otherwise\u2014because of the PAYE system, they do not get to see the money in the first place. Nevertheless, they have earned it. Yet at the same time we have what I would call rather clever, but somewhat\u2014I am searching for a polite word to describe them\u2014misguided people in an industry as big as the banking industry in New Zealand deliberately setting out to arrange their affairs in such a way that they do not pay their full rate of tax in New Zealand. So I am delighted that this bill will bring that situation to an end. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI also want to wish the Inland Revenue Department all the best in recovering the situation that has occurred over the previous years, because, as we know from various snippets in the press, there are also back taxes that are owed by the banks. I understand that negotiations are continuing between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department to address those problems, and to see some more\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228986499f3ba5415dbe4d7517c6e7043a\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: What a very soporific speech!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e1ed86023cb49c9a993c6548f01d574\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I say to Rod Donald that on this issue we are in probably in agreement for once, which is rather rare. On the other hand, I completely disagree with the Green Party when it comes to tax breaks to encourage people to undertake seismic work in New Zealand to find more oil and gas. I thoroughly applaud those moves. I think it is extremely simplistic to come to the House and say: \u201CWhy should we bother to encourage people to find oil and gas in New Zealand? After all, we have plenty of wind.\u201D It is possible, in a logical universe, to have wind, gas, oil, hydro, and coal as part of the energy mix that drives our economy. To think that we can just somehow sit back and let wind power drive our cars\u2014I mean, it blows a lot in Wellington but I have never had my car blown anywhere, so there is no chance whatever in Nelson or some other calmer spot in the country. So I think that is extremely simplistic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI want to say, though, that I do agree with one important point that the Hon Richard Prebble made. He is quite right when he says that truth is not determined by popular vote. We need to remind ourselves from time to time\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da2646b949cf4e28b9726906abae71dd\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: That applies to civil unions, my friend. That\u2019s why we should not have had a referendum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225da121e1d8334f0bafe399dbd4a7f528\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly! I was not going to bring that up, but the member is exactly right. Just because something has been passed by Parliament does not mean that it reflects truth, in the absolute sense of that word. I believe that such truth does exist. Whether we vote for it or against it, it does not alter the fact that it is the truth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWe need to move on in terms of what the bill does. I think that the deductions for expenditure incurred by businesses in avoiding, remedying, and mitigating detrimental effects to the environment from the discharge of contaminants is likewise a good move forward. An unfortunate situation has arisen in M\u0101pua, where I used to swim at Grosee\u2019s Point right alongside that piece of land. I knew the people who worked there. A situation has arisen there where it is not clear who should be paying for the remedying of such sites and what the tax situation is. Obviously, we need to ensure that sites of that sort are cleaned up for the sake of our environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI also took some interest in what Richard Prebble said about the new non-disclosure rules in respect of tax advisers other than lawyers. I think it is very fair and good that the situation that has applied historically to lawyers in this country concerning non-disclosure of information given to clients on their tax affairs will now be extended out to chartered accountants, as well. That is a very, very fair outcome. I do not know what the mix is, but I imagine that the majority of tax advice in this country is probably given by chartered accountants rather than by lawyers. These days there are an awful lot of people who have a BCom/LLB combination, so both professions are involved in giving tax advice. I think the new rules concerning privileged information are good. I find it surprising that the ACT party finds some fault with that provision, because it actually reduces the police State; it does not increase it, which is the claim that was made. Those brief comments are probably enough at this stage. It is a signal that United Future will be voting for the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022 data-id=\u00224fb23d7b67a241c7a0e8987a4edaca18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fb23d7b67a241c7a0e8987a4edaca18\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E It is probably obvious to anybody who has managed to listen to the speeches this morning that it is Friday, in the week before Christmas, and some strange speeches have been made as a result. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003EWe are dealing with a bill that seeks to make the taxation system fair and just and recognises the fact when that the profits of foreign-owned banks go up, their tax should not come down. But New Zealand First is utterly opposed to that. The party that says it is here for all New Zealanders says that the tax paid by foreign-owned banks should come down when their profits go up. We do not happen to agree with that, and that is why we have brought in this bill. We have included in the bill measures that place restrictions on the Inland Revenue Department, but the ACT party says that is terrible. I am not quite sure how that fits in with its liberal policies. Maybe it is just too early in the morning for those members to have read the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003EI think that most New Zealanders will be pleased that this Government is reducing compliance costs to business and protecting the revenue base. I note that John Key is fully supportive of this bill, but David Carter has not talked to him this morning to find out what the line is. I can tell him that on 16 November John Key said that National was going to support this bill because it is a sensible measure. It is just too late in the year for the Opposition to be thinking at all, let alone thinking straight. I utterly support the bill, as every right-thinking New Zealander would.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00223406d3ea1d4a48aa8b55ed034212513d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223406d3ea1d4a48aa8b55ed034212513d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (National):\u003C/span\u003E As I rise to speak on the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I am struck by the gall of Dr Michael Cullen, which appears to know no bounds. Last night at a quarter to 12\u2014just about on midnight\u2014he dropped in, unannounced, and surreptitiously tabled yet another tax bill in the House. When will we ever satisfy the insatiable demand from the Minister of Finance for more tax revenue? Dr Cullen is sitting on a massive surplus of $7.4 billion, but it is not enough for him. He has been busy with his officials, beavering away to see whether there is any more tax revenue he can get out of anybody who operates in this country. The question that needs to be asked is why we need these massive tax surpluses. It is all about next year, when Dr Cullen and Helen Clark need the ability to get out there and buy every vote that is around. That is what this tax bill is all about\u2014more money into the tax coffers, which is more money then available to Labour to spend with reckless abandonment next year as it attempts to salvage another term in Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe bill certainly deals with the issues of banks operating in New Zealand and whether they are paying the correct amount of tax. Dr Cullen is on record as saying that banks are dodging their legitimate tax burden. I am not in a position to know whether that is true or false. I would have thought it was a matter entirely between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department. I question whether it is appropriate for Dr Cullen, during question time, even to raise the issue of whether one specific bank is in breach of its own tax arrangements, but that is for Dr Cullen to sort out. I certainly acknowledge that the issue is complex. Banks have the ability to structure their affairs so that the amount of money they borrow from their overseas owners creates an interest liability to the bank operation in New Zealand, and that can be structured in such a way that may minimise tax. But I am simply not in a position to say whether that is a legitimate dodge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe issue is highly complex. I recall, regarding talks with both banks and significant overseas companies like, for example, Microsoft, that it was suggested that those large international conglomerates are in a position, regardless of the rules established, to structure their affairs to be then paying what they see as a reasonable rate of tax. I say to Dr Cullen today that if he puts yet another tax bill to a select committee, then those banks and companies like Microsoft will still have their best legal brains poring over any legislation that is finally passed, and that they will do their level best to make sure they minimise the tax burden to this country. The issue, then, is for the select committee to work through what will, inevitably, be detailed legislation, and I wish it well in those deliberations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe next issue I raise is the surprising move by Dr Cullen in this legislation to give away some tax revenue. Dr Cullen is adopting the Jim Anderton attitude to tax exemptions and is starting to favour one industry as opposed to another. This bill proposes to exempt overseas-owned companies involved in seismic surveys and offshore drilling. Clearly, the Government has finally acknowledged that there are significant oil reserves offshore from New Zealand and that we are not achieving significant investigation from overseas companies in both locating those reserves and then extracting them. We need more oil exploration, and I fully accept that. But I question today whether it is appropriate for the Government now to try to signal its desire to see more exploration by, in effect, giving a tax break. That is what this legislation proposes to do. In that regard, we are seeing Dr Cullen, who to date has been reasonably prudent fiscally, adopting a far more reckless attitude. It is an attitude that we see from his colleague Jim Anderton, whereby a Government picks winners in its mind and goes out there with legislation that then gives a tax advantage to that particular commercial activity over and above another. That is a further role that I implore the select committee to look at very closely. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI move to the third and final point that worries me with this legislation. In two cases that I can see from reading it, there is an element of retrospectivity. Dr Cullen has just taken a gasp, because he had been hoping that I had not noticed that. But I was sitting in the House till 12 o\u2019clock last night, after he had surreptitiously tabled this tax legislation, so I had an opportunity to read it carefully. Dr Cullen is proposing to make the significant tax break with regard to overseas seismic exploration and investigation companies retrospective to the beginning of this year\u2014to 1 January 2004.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c42a5383081a4049bd8af8e72cea5076\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s terrible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222037443c4b184afc88c5be9b3fc5a236\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I am not quite so sure of that, but Rod Donald, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, should watch that matter carefully. If Rod Donald is particularly concerned about the retrospectivity of that particular aspect of the bill\u2014it goes back to 1 January 2004\u2014let me take this opportunity to tell him that there is a bigger concern he needs to put his mind to. I am talking about the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund. For a reason that is completely unclear to me, that particular fund may now be liable to pay New Zealand tax on its worldwide income. Dr Cullen is equally surprised by that, obviously. He is preparing to change the legislation presented to the House today to provide an exemption for the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund so that it will not have to pay New Zealand income tax on its worldwide income. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIt is surprising\u2014and I implore Rod Donald to listen to this\u2014that if that provision successfully goes through the select committee process, it will not be retrospective to 1 January 2004. It will not even be retrospective to 1 January 2003. What Dr Cullen is doing for the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund is making the legislation retrospective right back to 1 July 2001. We have seen a lot of retrospective legislation brought into this House, but I do not recall any legislation being so retrospective as to propose to pass so large a tax break to any particular entity to go as far back as 1 July 2001. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ESo the select committee will be busy in the new year. It has a lot of work to sort out. If it needs further assistance, I will be only too happy to volunteer to help. But I ask the select committee to look carefully at the significant amount of retrospectivity that Dr Cullen slipped into this legislation, in the dead of night, at quarter to 12 last evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u0022af83b1d3be1642a3b54dff89e4fb76b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af83b1d3be1642a3b54dff89e4fb76b5\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour):\u003C/span\u003E This is very interesting. Here we are at quarter to 10 on a Friday morning, arguing down to the wire with the National Party about something Labour and National both agree on. That is quite an interesting tactic being employed by the National Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EI want, firstly, to congratulate the Minister of Finance. Of course, I am not the only one to do this. I understand that on 95bFM recently John Key, when asked who his politician of the year was, said it was the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We all agree on that. I say to John Key that the Labour Party membership fee is only $11, and all is forgiven. He would be a good Labour Party member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228996bb83c8e64e3296665bb9bd280411\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Good State house boy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7aedcded39b4c8890ee8d22427e33ad\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, he is a good State house boy, so he would understand Labour\u2019s very good housing policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abad5ba6c8df4720bc0580f5f846dfdf\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Income-related rents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022382bab441586497299c9f4e1c74e4831\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, of course he understands income-related rents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022650c8129370c44559ca3b6184002b635\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s how he got here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa49b68e8147468d89fbcdf61a8723ec\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: That is, indeed, how he got here. We share John Key\u2019s enthusiasm for the work the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has done in the finance portfolio, and we support John Key in his support for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EThis is a good measure in a good bill. It is kind of understandable that the ACT party opposes it, because it just does not like tax, full stop. It is hard to understand New Zealand First, because sometimes those members do like tax and sometimes they do not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221696a4b5049040acbd91d05a5db1514c\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re not even members of the Kiwibank.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2b78063c93442b6a1408dbef8a6cfbd\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. It is sometimes hard to understand what their position on tax is. They are very enthusiastic about having a lot of tax go into things like inquiries. They call for inquiries virtually every day of the week. They call for inquiries on this, royal commissions on that, and investigations into the other\u2014taxpayers\u2019 money going into those kinds of things\u2014but they have a strange and odd view when it comes to other matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EThis is really an important measure as part of the Government\u2019s tax policy work programme. As members will know, part of that programme\u2014it is not just about tax\u2014is about promoting growth and innovation. I hear a bell; I think it is a message from Auckland that my time may be up. There are lots of things I would like to talk about on the fabulous work that this Government and this Minister of Finance have done, but I think it is sufficient to say that this is a thoroughly good bill. It is well supported from outside, and I look forward to its speedy progression through the House, through the select committee, and ultimately through Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u002254bf782f6ab34f29be05dc5311917859\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254bf782f6ab34f29be05dc5311917859\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, I start by saying that I may have been a little presumptive in wishing you a merry Christmas last night. If this urgency keeps going the way it is, I may well be wishing you a happy New Year from the same seat. National will be supporting the progress of this bill to the select committee. The bill raises some pretty interesting issues. It will be interesting to see the work of the select committee in this area. I do not think it takes very much for people to understand, in one sense, why the Government has chosen, with this bill, to look at a major policy shift around thin capitalisation and conduit rules. I think it is worth looking back just for a moment at the history of why thin capitalisation rules were put in place in New Zealand. My understanding is that they came about because of entities like, I think, Carter Holt Harvey that were owned by a foreign parent but had offshore investments\u2014the rules around investments held by the New Zealand entity but owned off shore. The real question that arises in relation to New Zealand banks owned by a foreign parent is whether they have been undertaking transactions related to their thin capitalisation and undertaking structured finance conduit deals for legitimate reasons, or whether they have been doing so for some other reason, to reduce their tax base. That is ultimately the question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThere are a number of views one could take. The first is that it may be a mixture of both\u2014that, in fact, some of the deals have indeed been totally legitimate deals that the banks have looked to undertake and to house in New Zealand because of the nature of New Zealand tax rules. But I think it is also worth noting that some of the deals may well have had a structured component. It is interesting that the Minister of Finance has made it clear that he thinks the revenue impact, post the passing of this legislation\u2014assuming it goes through the House\u2014will be of the order of $360 million. He has indicated to the public that that $360 million is likely to be poured back into growing his tax base, which would allow him to fund more spending initiatives, which we know this Government loves to undertake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOn a number of fronts, I think he is wrong on that count. I do not think the Minister will get $360 million of additional revenue. I say that for a number of reasons. Nor do I believe that the Inland Revenue Department is likely to be successful in its claims against the banks to the extent it is arguing. I say that because, from what I can see, every bank in New Zealand has a different accounting firm and a different legal firm advising it in relation to these conduit deals, and, despite the fact that they all have different legal opinions and different accounting advisers, not one bank in New Zealand has chosen to put a provision in place for the relationship around these conduit deals. To put it in simple terms, the Inland Revenue Department is telling the Minister that it will win and that it will deliver $360 million of revenue, which the Minister of Finance is very gleefully happy to accept, bank, and spend. Not only has he banked the future revenue he thinks he will get; he has banked the post revenue he thinks he will claw back from the banks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI make this statement in the House today: he will not be successful to anywhere near the extent that he thinks he will. I think he knows that, because many of those banks are sitting on rulings from the Inland Revenue Department that say that the deals they undertook in New Zealand were legally correct. If the banks have a ruling that say that the deals are legally correct, and the department is telling them that they are somehow not correct and that it will get that money off them, then that will be an interesting legal tussle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIf it was one of the banks in New Zealand, with one set of accountants and one set of lawyers, then I might have a bit more confidence that the department and the Minister might be successful. But it is not. It is every bank in New Zealand, from what I can see, or all the major offshore-owned banks. They all have different legal opinions and different accounting treatments. The first recommendation I would make is that the Minister stops banking the money that he thinks he will get from the department, because he is very unlikely to get it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ESecondly, I think he needs to take a very close look at these rules. The thin capitalisation rules will essentially look, in very simple terms, at the way outward-bound and inward-bound investment can be deducted, and at what the base level of registered equity needs to be for a New Zealand bank. That will be determined to be 4 percent. In effect, a large number of the conduit deals that had outward bound investment were used to effectively reduce the banks\u2019 equity in New Zealand, and therefore their registered New Zealand income. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe interesting question is whether these rules will work. The answer, in some part, is that they will. But it was equally the case when the thin capitalisation rules were brought into New Zealand on Carter Holt Harvey\u2019s request. They were never deemed to be used for things that ultimately the registered banks may have done. I think the select committee should have a very good look at this. No one is arguing that if the New Zealand banks are not paying their fair share of tax, they should be. The banks have been well consulted on this issue and have been engaged in the process. They understand the issue. I am just very sceptical about what it is likely to achieve. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI will make some comments about why I think it is very unlikely that the $360 million that the Minister has argued for, banked, and pre-spent is likely to arrive. I do not think that it has dawned on the Inland Revenue Department that a number of the transactions that were undertaken in New Zealand were in relation to the conduit deals here. But quite a number of transactions were done because, with the New Zealand tax rules, it made sense to park those transactions in New Zealand. The moment that those thin capitalisation rules change under this bill, some of those transactions will simply not take place here. One cannot do a linear calculation and say that just because the rules have changed one can now apply this income tax treatment to every deal that took place in New Zealand, because they will not be here. The reality is that a lot of them will not be here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ESo the banks will pay more tax. The banks will change their activity around thin capitalisation. Whether or not it was legitimate, they will change their treatment and pay more tax as a result of this bill, I have no doubt. But I make the comment that it is very unlikely that it will be anywhere near the level that the Minister thinks it will. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI will move on to the relationship to the 6-year income exemption for offshore systemic surveying undertaken. We welcome that move\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a06a70ab8e64b978f0cb3965cca1654\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a61d9682f2543abbe9fbc8e3f8eef75\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014unlike the Greens, who do not think it is a good idea to try to recognise that New Zealand has a major energy issue. New Zealand is running out of energy. The Green Party thinks that a really good idea is to get pensioners to turn off their heated towel rails. That will not fix New Zealand\u2019s problem. We have a growing economy that is using more energy. Our No. 1 gasfield is running out of gas. This Government has not done nearly enough to get out there and make sure that New Zealand does not run out of energy. The Minister of Finance knows there are two major reasons that foreign companies state that they do not want to come to New Zealand in a hurry, and No. 1 on that list is energy. They are worried about running out of energy in New Zealand. This move, if it does anything to encourage more drillers into New Zealand, is welcome. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI will make a final comment, which is not about the issue that Mr Carter raised in relation to Cook Islands superannuation. I will leave that to the experts. But it is in relation to the statutory privilege around tax advisers. That is a welcome move. It makes sense for that information to be privileged, as it has been for some time. I will make this comment. The rules are incredibly technical, with many caveats. They require the advisers to sign away their life in blood, and that seems to be a function of much of the legislation being passed under urgency by this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022467cbdd5630b418f997ec12b6c9ee243\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022467cbdd5630b418f997ec12b6c9ee243\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on the first reading of this bill to support its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It has been a very interesting debate. We had a 10-minute contribution from Mr McNair of New Zealand First who railed against foreign-owned banks, only for us to find that New Zealand First members do not belong to the New Zealand - owned bank\u2014Kiwibank\u2014that a number of New Zealand\u2019s members of Parliament are members of. So for all the criticism that New Zealand First had about foreign-owned banks, we could not get a clear answer from the member about what bank he belonged to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003EWe had a 10-minute contribution from John Key who, as is always the case when it comes to National Party tax policy, flip-flopped. He could not work out where National stood on it or what it was doing about it, because when it comes to tax his party cannot make up its mind. Don Brash is still rolling him in the caucus room.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022 data-id=\u00228cc9b45f01b74070b3107e7ead36bab4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228cc9b45f01b74070b3107e7ead36bab4\u0022\u003ECRAIG McNAIR (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 106 I raise an issue regarding the speech given by the member who has just spoken. He said that I said that no New Zealand First members were members of Kiwibank. I never said that, and that is not true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf402bf112eb4acd9daff12e47969307\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022019f9e81b13244aaa5f8bbdc619941c8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 111\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time, and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022571a9b09b8774434ba7ed7e716e40f39\u0022\u003EEducation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220bd925d006a0479a9748b7d8a64043d1\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00225fca86061ea94555ac1e584cbaf5afbf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225fca86061ea94555ac1e584cbaf5afbf\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee at the conclusion of this reading. This bill is another good example of this Government\u2019s commitment to raising the standard of our education system. Unlike the Opposition, the Government moves with the times. Current education legislation has been amended considerably, and some of it is out of date. This bill starts the process of tidying up and streamlining our education legislation to make it easier to follow and more efficient to implement. It is the first stage in a process to reform and improve the state of education legislation. I expect there will be further legislation in 2006. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThe bill has two areas of significant policy change. These are to establish a new regulatory regime in the early childhood education sector and to extend the national student number to both the compulsory and early childhood education sectors. Early childhood education has been a key focus for this Government. We want every child to get the best start in life. Research has shown that those who participate in quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed later in life. The new regulatory regime in early childhood education sets minimum standards that will help us drive up quality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EIt also gets rid of ambiguities in the current system of licensing of early childhood education centres, so that it is easier for services to understand what is required of them to meet licensing standards. I see that even in some of our more affluent suburbs, there are problems with getting the categories right in making applications for licences or for discretionary grants. This bill involves a simplification in that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EOur approach to early childhood education contrasts starkly with that of the Opposition. Dr Brash has already said that he would do away with the policy of 20 hours\u2019 free education per week. He did not say \u201Cby lunchtime\u201D, he did say \u201Cafter the next election\u201D, but I think that one thing is for certain: children will be getting their 20 hours\u2019 free education\u2014and Dr Brash will be gone. [Interruption] Paul Swain will be working to keep our early childhood centres full of children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af769063a1b640169c7d8fc319243c74\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: I will be on the pension!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d914c9bef704ee19495e93839c23d73\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: He will be on the pension, and they will be getting their free early childhood education. The thing we know is that after the next election, there will be a change in the spokesperson on education in the Opposition. We think that Bill English will go back to being leader again. Thankfully, though, the chances of Opposition members being involved in setting policy will not happen for a very long time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EThe extension of the National Student Number throughout the whole education sector will allow much more efficient collection and collation of information. The National Student Number is already used in the senior secondary school and tertiary sectors to keep students\u2019 academic records, and to ensure the efficient and accurate funding of our education institutions. An offence provision is included for any instance where the National Student Number is misused. The maximum fine is $15,000. Other amendments in the Education Amendment Bill are designed to improve administration efficiency, to transfer and update some sections of the older legislation still in use in the Education Act 1989, and sections that are no longer necessary are repealed. We do need legislation for the 21st century to support an education system that will provide us with the skills and knowledge required to be an effective nation. Legislation needs to be easy to access and to understand. This bill does not totally achieve that, but it is a step in the right direction, and I commend the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill 2004 to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00222df1a1c947cf465dbcc359c3489dfabf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222df1a1c947cf465dbcc359c3489dfabf\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E Well, that was a quiet valedictory from that Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220094d898b887405c833831de98634ba8\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want a bet?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240cbaaf819404f4a84aea20b19e32d25\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: No, I would not bet on it. I just hope like anything that we get Steve Maharey. That would be great, we are really looking forward to it! This legislation is quite uncharacteristic of that Minister, in that some of it is useful. Some of it is actually quite good. I do not think that anyone would want to stand in the way of simplifying the regulatory regime for early childhood education. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI just want to draw attention to some of the issues that we will be looking to debate in select committee, when it goes through the detailed provisions of this bill. We support a better regime for early childhood education regulation. It is too complicated at the moment, there are doubled-up requirements, and it is time it was tidied up, but the way this bill approaches it does play with fire. I want to draw some of the risks to the attention of the Minister, as well as to the attention of the House. The Minister may do well to listen to this, regardless of whether he or someone else will see this legislation through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThere are some real lessons from going down a similar path to the path taken in the health sector. What this legislation imagines it will do is focus on outcomes\u2014not health standards prescriptions\u2014to set some very broad principles, and then allow officials to determine by regulation just what the requirements will be for setting up and running an early childhood centre. That is a path we went down with the legislation in the health sector in the mid to late 1990s. I can tell members that there are many potholes on that path. For instance, if we do not have much prescription in the legislation, there is no constraint on officials. What health providers have discovered is that we can end up with more prescriptive regulations, because officials feel free to lay down by regulation anything they like. They have no particular reason to be careful or economic about it. The legislation gives them a free hand. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3b02c0ccb1c443da39d66436cb2c87f\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think that out of courtesy to the speaker, there is far too much talk, and people have their backs to the speaker and are not sitting down. I just give that final warning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed198de0b8044fc9914088542e923667\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I would have thought that the Government would have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022413fa3d5752b4e8ead085f1045a1f4e3\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s so washed up, he\u2019s not worth listening to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dcc6a5a47e3411eb37464b87562be3f\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a direct challenge to the ruling you have just made. I take offence at the way the Government members are treating the Speaker in the Chair by turning their backs to her and defying a ruling straight away, and I suggest you ask them to withdraw that interjection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f380edfb66cc40c3bbf2a0f5f6b94560\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think that the member is quite right. I ask the member to stand and withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228e3dd7f7af94dd6a67af3fde7920082\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: So I hope the Minister will pay attention to the problems that have been created in health by a regime of the type he is proposing. Also in this bill is a change in the way early childhood education will be funded. The legislation sets off down the path of permitting funding to be related to the type of service and to the cost of that service. I say that this is the bit I am most concerned about, because the legislation allows the Minister a free hand to determine the entitlement of New Zealand children, and we have seen how he is using that free hand at the moment. What the Government should be doing is taking the approach that every New Zealand child has an entitlement to early childhood education. It is not compulsory, so parents are free to choose whether to take up that entitlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is effectively what is in place now, but what this legislation will do is validate the approach the Minister has taken. He has decided he likes some kinds of early childhood centres and does not like others. He will bring in a regime that provides a much more significant entitlement for some New Zealand children than for others. That entitlement will not be determined by the need of the children, the socio-economic status of their parents, social or educational need, or citizenship, but by which childcare centre the parents decide to send their child to\u2014and that, in our current society, is pretty much random. Parents have no particular say or choice over whether they have access to the Minister\u2019s preferred early childhood centres, which are community-led or teacher-led services. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EHe does not like private providers, so he will use the flexibility in this legislation to determine that children who go to private providers have a lesser entitlement. That is ridiculous, and we will oppose that right through the passage of this bill. We want this legislation to constrain the Minister\u2019s and the bureaucrats\u2019 opportunity to discriminate amongst New Zealand children. I never thought we would need to do that, because I thought all politicians in all parties would have the view that, if someone is 2, 3, or 4 years old, that person cannot be blamed for the ideological predispositions of a Government. Those children should have an entitlement that they can access anywhere, anytime, that is consistent with parents\u2019 choices and preferences about early childhood education. But because of the way the Minister is behaving, as it is discriminatory and unfair, we believe that this Education Amendment Bill will have to be changed to ensure that every child under the age of 5 has a reasonable entitlement to early childhood education, and that every child is treated fairly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt does not mean the funding has to be exactly the same for every child, but it does mean we want a provision that will prevent significant discrimination on no basis other than the Minister\u2019s personal preferences. We see this exhibited in a story on the front page of the Dominion Post today, where a playcentre in Kelburn was refused funding by this Minister, personally, to repair its playcentre building clad in raw asbestos. If people rub their hands on it, they get asbestos on them. The Minister refused that application for funding at the same time as he funded two centres in his own electorate. One application from his electorate got $70,000 more than it applied for\u2014it got $730,000 instead of $660,000. The Kelburn Playcentre, which applied for only $70,000, the amount of that difference, was turned down. So if he had simply applied fairness to his own electorate, the Kelburn Playcentre could have got the money. The playcentre did not get the money, because the Minister does not like playcentres. He does not like parents collectively providing early childhood education for their own children. That is why there needs to be some constraint in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI want to refer to a couple of other issues. Clause 29 introduces a new provision to the Act about the intimidation of teachers: every person commits an offence, and is liable for a fine, if he or she intimidates any teacher or member of the staff at a school. I am very worried about this provision. Of course teachers should have the protection of the law in the workplace, the same as any other worker, but bullying has become a fashionable accusation against school principals who demand performance of their staff. This provision is going to be wielded by the Post Primary Teachers Association, in particular, as a threat over any senior management in a school who have expectations of their staff, and that is a step backwards. In fact, that could end up being a huge step backwards and the most significant problem in this legislation, and we will want to examine that very closely. We believe that this provision is far too broad, that it will be a major constraint on the successful management of schools, and that it will have to be changed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to talk a bit about the National Student Number. We support a National Student Number, but the House needs to bear in mind that this will create data about individual pupils on a scale that has never been possible, or imagined, in New Zealand. The intention of it is that individual pastoral and achievement information can be passed between schools, and between schools and the ministry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThere are many advantages from that, but when we ally it, when we put it alongside the Minister\u2019s strong preference for the asTTle achievement tool, which is all good and quite successful, and the accreditation process for information technology systems in schools, those who have always opposed testing of pupils and the use of that information need to be aware that this amounts to the infrastructure of any kind of testing anyone could possibly imagine. The information will certainly be created and it will be potentially available to anyone at the level of the individual student. We want to make sure that that part of the legislation is also well scrutinised. It will be an offence to misuse it, but the definition of misuse will need a great deal of discussion, because it can be used positively or negatively.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022 data-id=\u00221a325f37409b46179ce5e927437645d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a325f37409b46179ce5e927437645d7\u0022\u003EDAVE HEREORA (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I take this opportunity to extend my support for the bill. The bill\u2019s main feature for me is that it implements the outcomes of the early childhood regulatory review by establishing a new scheme that gets rid of ambiguities in the current system of licensing early childhood education centres. Therefore, it will be easier for early childhood services to understand what is required of them to meet licensing standards. The regulatory review was part of the Government\u2019s 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. I extend my support for the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u0022baaab476f0894f27873ec461547701cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022baaab476f0894f27873ec461547701cd\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E This bill traverses such a wide range of areas that one could speak on it for hours but, given the particular circumstances, I am not too certain my colleagues would be very impressed if I planned to do that. The bill does range over a wide area, although most of it is nuts and bolts stuff. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the Education and Science Committee, but we will also be guaranteeing that when it reaches that committee there will be very close scrutiny of the issues it traverses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI want to take the House back to the days prior to the education reforms, when there was a Department of Education, education boards, and things called brown cards. The brown cards contained the record of attendance of a child for every year, and there was a 1 to 5 assessment system based around the normal distribution curves of the school population. The brown cards provided a system that enabled the tracking of students. If a student left a school, the brown card was not passed on until a slip was received from the new school saying the child had been enrolled. Then the brown card was sent on. If after a certain amount of time the school did not receive that slip, one went to the truancy officers at the education board who would then track the child down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EWhen Tomorrow\u2019s Schools came along and the Government got rid of education boards, obviously there were no truancy officers any more and no one to employ them, so the answer to the problem of \u201CWhat are we going to do?\u201D was to leave it over to boards of trustees. Well, that has to be the stupidest solution to that problem that there could have been, because the last thing boards of trustees wanted was to use scarce resources in hunting down those kids who were not in the practice of attending school on a regular basis. They were not the kids that schools necessarily wanted, so we ended up with large numbers of students slipping through the cracks. It was a real problem during the 1990s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI can tell members that as a principal of an intermediate school I used to hold on to all the cards of the students going on to various secondary schools, and wait for those schools to ask for them. The cards were kept in my office. One year I had cards in my office for over 6 months and they still had not been collected. We did not have a clue where the students were whose cards remained there. After a while we thought: \u201CWe\u2019ve got all these cards packed up. We don\u2019t know where the students have got to. We will send them to the Ministry of Education.\u201D Do members know what the ministry did? It send them all back to us. That was how good the system was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003ENow the Greens will argue that it is an infringement of human rights to give people a unique identifier. I would suggest to the Greens that it is an infringement of human rights not to provide an education for the young people of this country, and that too many of them, in fact, have been slipping through the cracks. So we believe that this legislation is a move in the right direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe Greens will ask: \u201CWhy don\u2019t you just give them a name?\u201D Well, I will use another anecdote. I was in Titikaveka in the Cook Islands, and over the Christmas break its school changed from what was basically an area school into a college. I did not find out until the day before that that change was going to be made. We even had the infants\u2019 desks still there and we had to start arranging things. But after trying to track down all the cards and who was at the school we ended up with 20 cards that had no kids for those names. But there were 20 kids who did not have cards. They had gone to Takitimu school the year before. Then it dawned on us that the kids had changed their names over the Christmas period, which was quite a regular occurrence over there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EGiven the number of Pacific Islanders in our Auckland schools and in New Zealand schools, one would assume that that is occurring on a fairly frequent basis here. This legislation will overcome the problems associated with the changing of names, which is quite literally what some people do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI want to go into another area of genuine concern, but I really see the clause in question quite differently from the Hon Bill English. Up in Northland, many schools are small, isolated schools with only one, two, or maybe three staff, and most of them are staffed by women. The principals of those schools are expressing real concern about one of the things happening\u2014that is, people who are tanked up on P are coming to their schools during the daytime over issues relating to kids, and the schools are too far away to get any help. I myself have been in a school where a distraught father threatened to shoot me, but that was under a very different circumstance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI think that we do need to send out fairly strong messages from this House that we will defend our teachers, protect them, and give them fundamental protections from that sort of behaviour. I can assure members that there is genuine fear amongst many of the staff up in the far north about the sort of bullying behaviour that some parents take, in association with the unfortunate increase in the use of P. So we are very happy with section 139C inserted by clause 29. If anything, we would like to see section 139C amended upwards so that the penalties are greater than what they are in that provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca648733a6274421899e6329f7824576\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275d03c105e17465ca257e00596900925\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: So we have people over there who do not want any protection for teachers. That is the National Party. It does not want to protect its teachers in rural areas, yet it claims that it is a rural party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThere are some minor changes to the way in which the New Zealand Teachers Council will be able to operate. We have to say at this point in time that the New Zealand Teachers Council has been a real disappointment. It was supposed to do wonderful things and be the professional body for teachers, but it has had a very unfortunate history, starting off with a very unfortunate appointment to its head position by the Minister of Education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EWe do not believe that the council is doing a wonderful job. We believe that if it could get its work going properly, that would be very important. In fact, Dr Nick Smith will tell members that the National \u2013 New Zealand First Government was working along a policy in the same direction. However, the actual practicality of that has not been good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003ECertainly, the changes that are reflected in the bill will enable the council to do its job better. There is some tidying up of matters around boards of trustees and annual general meetings. Once again, it is sensible stuff in the light of practical experience. When people designed the framework around which boards of trustees operated they were not fully aware of everything that would take place, but in the light of experience we can see that it is now necessary to make some changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EAnother feature of this bill that we see as positive is that it gives the potential, at least, for the Minister of Education to create some form of bonding around a scholarship system, or an upfront reduction of fees, for students at tertiary level. We have seen what I believe is a scandal\u2014the increase in fees by the University of Otago for medical students of, I think, 10 percent on top of its current fees. Neither National nor Labour have treated our would-be medical practitioners very well, at all. Medical students are the cream of the bunch; they are taken off the top. They have the longest training programme of virtually anyone and they have such an important public-good function when they come out, yet we are lumbering them with huge amounts of debt\u2014debt much higher than that of any other level of students. That really is unforgivable in terms of a society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThis bill would enable a Minister to inject some common sense into the funding of our medical students by upfronting the reduction of fees on the basis that students are bonded for a certain number of years. Those people who trained in teaching back in the time I trained as a teacher will know the benefits of the bonding system, particularly for people from working-class areas, as I was. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI will round off by saying that Bill English raised some very serious concerns about the early childhood sector\u2014concerns that are reflected in this bill. We have to concur with Bill English on those concerns and on what he said. There is a very unfortunate situation occurring where the Minister seems to have been sucked in by one particular teachers\u2019 group, and he has built policy all around one particular set of providers who are not necessarily the best providers\u2014or the worst. They are just historically linked with Governments, going back to 1948, I think, when Peter Fraser first started paying kindergarten teachers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EKindergartens have morning and afternoon sessions because the women, the philanthropists, etc., who first put them in place to look after the children of the poor did not believe that mothers should work. So the early childhood education provider\u2014the service\u2014has those sorts of anachronisms within its structure as the preferred provider. Kindergartens largely teach 4-year-olds, and so many of the provisions in the early childhood sector are built around the delivery of education for 4-year-olds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI heard about a case last night of a staff person with a degree, in relation to a baby in an early childhood centre. The person realised that the baby was hot, but when someone said to take its temperature she did not know how to do that, even though she had a degree and was being paid at huge rates. I will bet, if my teaching of students is anything to go by, that that person will know the theories of Karl Marx. Students know the theories of Karl Marx and they get their degrees, but they do not know how to use a thermometer or take a baby\u2019s temperature. Unfortunately, that is the direction in which the Minister\u2019s policy priorities are taking us, so we will certainly be scrutinising that part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThat is the negative side of this legislation. Other than that, we will be supporting it going to a select committee and going through the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00221758fad48c94415bbf1892c7116496d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221758fad48c94415bbf1892c7116496d0\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT party will also be supporting this bill\u2019s referral to a select committee, but we have grave reservations about this legislation. It has wide-ranging reforms, especially to do with the early childhood sector, and we look forward, at the select committee, to receiving what will be some very good submissions from the early childhood sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe Minister has almost decimated early childhood education in this country. Yesterday he would have received\u2014as would some of the members sitting over there\u2014a letter from a woman who has been running early childhood care centres for 27 years, and has loved it, but is just fed up and is now putting her centre on the market. The end of her letter states: \u201CMany who have brought their children to us, and those children now are grown up and bringing their children to the centres, confirm what joy they have brought to childcare over the years. The pleasures I have experienced educating and nurturing preschoolers through the years has been snuffed out by over-regulation and bureaucracy.\u201D That says it all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe serious concerns we have revolve around having things like a national identity number. There has been a call for years now for the Government to do something about truancy and the number of children in schools who just disappear. However, I do not see that having a national identity number will do anything to get children back into education. Many children are just resistant to school\u2014they are not necessarily resistant to education\u2014and if we keep dragging them back in front of a classroom with 30 other children and doing things the same way, we will get the same results. I seriously question having a national identity number for under 5-year-olds, children who are not in the compulsory education sector. I do not believe that I am being hysterical here, or over-reactive, and I am sure that the Greens have serious concerns about this too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EFor years we have seen Governments try to bring in national identity numbers. We saw it with National, with drivers\u2019 licences, with Maurice Williamson and Jenny Shipley. Is this another Trojan Horse for a national identity number for everyone? Will babies get a pin number when they are born so that we can trace them through the health system and through the education system\u2014so called? Those sorts of State interferences are always brought in in everyone\u2019s best interests, and when it is in the best interests of children, that is when people\u2019s antennae should go up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EEarly childhood education in this country used to be the best example of how parents could exercise choice in their children\u2019s education. We have a huge amount of competition. There are kindergartens, k\u014Dhanga reo, playcentres, private centres, and community-owned centres. Most parents can choose where they want to send their children\u2014or they could until recently, with the distortion of funding and the free hours for community-owned centres, which the Minister brought in, against Treasury advice. Just this week I received Treasury papers that warned the Minister that that would cause distortions. Treasury gave other warnings, which I will come to later. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe Minister does not like private education centres or early childhood centres. He has called them \u201CKentucky Fried childcare\u201D. I have been to numerous conferences on the early childhood sector. Those people are extraordinary teachers. They take children probably at the most difficult time but the most receptive time, when children are little sponges and are the most vulnerable to good or bad education. There is the old saying that whatever one has put into children by the time they are 7 will make the adult later. These people are not nappy changers. They are educators and teachers. None the less, it is not a one-size-fits-all sector of the education system. One can go to a kindergarten where kindergarten teachers give 3 hours or 2 hours of intensive education, then go down the road, or next door, to an early childhood centre that is open for 8 or 10 hours and has two or three shifts of teachers where they are catering to a vast variety of needs of children, some intensive education, some just play education, and all sorts of issues. None the less, this Minister has driven through a new regulatory scheme whereby all so-called persons of responsibility in an early childhood centre need a minimum qualification of Bachelor of Education in early childhood education\u2014not the qualification of Bachelor of Education in primary teaching, or of being a mother, and not even of being someone who has had 30 years\u2019 experience. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI have four children, the youngest of whom is 19. Clearly, I was a danger to children, because when all my children were under 5, most of the time they were at home with me. They were on unlicensed premises with an unlicensed teacher\u2014a teacher who did not have any tertiary qualifications. Clearly, those children should have been removed from my care, just as I should have been removed from my parents\u2019 care, and just as a lot of the people in this House, who were brought up in the country, where there was no early childhood education, should have been removed from their parents\u2019 care. Goodness knows how we grew up to be as sane as we are! Thank goodness this Minister is riding to the rescue and saving children from having such a dreadful upbringing! At last every person of responsibility in an early childhood centre has to have the right piece of paper to wave in front of his or her employer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ETreasury advised the Minister that there would be serious risks to bringing this measure in. It advised the Minister that up to 400 early childhood centres throughout New Zealand would close. That is exactly the case, because 400 centres are now under threat of closure by the end of January. This legislation does amend that by introducing provisional licensing that can go up to 18 months, but those centres have to comply by January, in a month\u2019s time. This bill will not do anything for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EIf the Minister knew this legislation was coming in, why did K\u0101whia Early Childhood Learning Centre\u2014which is 90 percent M\u0101ori, is attached to the K\u0101whia Primary School, and has total community and parent support\u2014a brilliant centre, have to go to the High Court in Hamilton to remain open? Why was the Minister, in his bullying way, going to close it? Was it because the children were not safe? No. It was because the person of responsibility had a Bachelor of Education in primary teaching. She was also fluent in te reo, totally bilingual, and perfectly suited to the centre, because 90 percent of the children attending are M\u0101ori. But, despite all of that, she did not have the right piece of paper to wave in front of the woman who was running the centre, and the centre had to take its case to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI want to mention briefly the other concern I have, and that is the Teachers Council, which is to get extra teeth with this legislation. The Teachers Council has been a complete and utter failure. What we had, the Teacher Registration Board, was not broken. But, bowing to union demand, the Minister brought in the Teachers Council, which now passes people to teach despite their being red-flagged by the police. I will tell the House what that has meant in England. Obviously, the Teachers Council has never heard of 190-page report called the Bichard Inquiry, which was published in June this year. That inquiry investigated how Ian Huntley, the man who was convicted of murdering schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, was able to be employed as a school caretaker when he had a history of allegations of rape, burglary, indecent assault, and unlawful sexual intercourse. Here was a man who had been red-flagged by the police in England, yet he was still able to be passed as someone who could work in a school. This bill will not do anything to improve the Teachers Council. It should be dumped, and we should start all over again with checking teachers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022 data-id=\u00223f86142e8e77455594ec55b632a518fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f86142e8e77455594ec55b632a518fc\u0022\u003EROD DONALD (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens will support this bill going to the select committee, but we make no promises after that. There are two issues I would like to raise in the first reading debate. The first is our concern\u2014shared, obviously, by Deborah Coddington from ACT\u2014with the extension of the student number system from the secondary sector, into the primary and early childhood sector. Currently, these numbers are used in the secondary and tertiary sectors to collect and combine data for policy and analysis purposes to enable the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to record credits and qualifications gained by learners on the national qualifications framework, and to allow tertiary education providers to use information on the National Student Number system to verify enrolling students\u2019 identity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EOn the face of it, the National Student Number system is used for fairly benign purposes, but the Greens have always been concerned that these unique personal identifiers could be readily misused. The only other existing national ID number is the National Health Index number, which is an identification number given to all children at birth. We are tracked for our entire lives. To that extent, there appears to be very little information about the effectiveness of these numbers in the secondary and tertiary sector, and virtually no checks on whether the numbers or the data have been misused. That is something we want to examine closely at the select committee, to ensure that there is scrutiny of how the numbers are used, and that there are mechanisms to ensure that the data is not abused. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe bill provides for these numbers to be extended to the primary and early childhood sector, primarily for the purposes of attracting students, to minimise non-enrolment, and to ensure no double-dipping. I point out to Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First that he has misrepresented us. We are not against numbers. We are not saying that everyone should have only a name, because there is a need to ensure that children are enrolled and attending schools. But although there may seem to be a laudable purpose in this, the capacity for the misuse of this data is very high. We want to know whether this information about non-enrolment will be shared with other State agencies, such as Work and Income. We want to know whether it could be used to financially penalise beneficiary families, for example. We want to know whether any other agency or body can be authorised to have access to this data under the bill. Without more information about the current misuse of the numbers already in use and concrete provisions to prevent unjustified sharing of information for punitive purposes, the Greens do not think that these numbers should be extended. We look forward to assurances about that at the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe second issue concerns clause 4, which amends section 14 of the Education Act. Section 14 concerns the suspension and exclusion powers of principals. The clause 4 amendment put up by the Government is merely a tidy-up, which is hugely disappointing for the vast number of families from all walks of life who suffer from the abuse of these provisions. The 2003 report on stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions, and expulsions shows that stand-down cases increased by 1,946, from 17,912 to 19,858, while suspensions dropped slightly to 4,887. Some programmes, like the suspension reduction initiative, are having an impact for some children, and that is great, but still we have nearly 20,000 students being stood down every year. Nearly 5,000 are suspended, and the ministry confesses that a suspended child is away from school for 62 days, on average. I see that Mr Carter is smiling. I do not know whether his partner is involved in any suspensions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003ESuspensions are a behaviour management tool used by schools, but it is supposed to be used only as an absolute last resort. Sadly, for thousands of families that is not the case. In suspending children, a principal and a board exercise a statutory power of decision making. The only appeal for such a decision is to take a judicial review action to the High Court. The Ombudsman, the Children\u2019s Commissioner, and youth advocates are inundated with complaints from parents who argue that their child has been wrongly, unjustly, or unlawfully excluded from his or her school. But where can they go to have their children reinstated? The only place they can go to is the High Court and only at considerable expense. Court fees increased again only 6 months ago, and only two such cases have ever been taken in New Zealand. The fact is that the best way of keeping kids at school is to engage them in learning, not kicking them out for stupid or unlawful reasons. The proposed change in clause 4 will do nothing for those children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EMy colleague Metiria Turei has a member\u2019s bill in the ballot that would establish a school review authority. That authority would be able to review the statutory decisions of boards and principals, and make binding decisions on both the families and the schools. The costs would be minimal for families, so justice would be accessible to all. The authority would provide legal guidelines to schools on how to properly use the statutory powers they have available to them, which would provide a sound legal platform for schools. Such an authority would ensure that all our families have access to justice and that all our kids get the best possible protection of the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003EThe Greens are very disappointed that the Government\u2019s bill does not deal with the real problems inherent in section 14 of the Education Act and the misuse of the suspension and stand-down provisions, and we will pursue the matter further in the select committee. There are a number of other significant issues in the bill. We look forward to dealing with them during the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u00222a19db53e0d241d6a3a6176d0fe607fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a19db53e0d241d6a3a6176d0fe607fb\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I stand on behalf of United Future to take a call in the debate on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. United Future will vote in favour of the bill going to the select committee. We have a number of reasons why we want to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWe are very conscious that the bill is a mixture of clean-up material\u2014minor policy changes\u2014and some major policy initiatives. That is why we are very happy to vote for the bill to go to a select committee\u2014so that we can deal with the wide range of items on offer in the bill. It is there that we will hear the submitters put to us their questions on, and their solutions for, some of the elements in the bill, and it is there that we will be able to find out first-hand from the appropriate submitters on the various wide-ranging parts whether the proposed deletions and transfers from each of the Acts listed in the bill should occur in the first place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EFor example, as a select committee, when the bill comes before us we will need to reflect on the expertise of the School Trustees Association in terms of some of the old regulations that are modified, discounted, or folded into the present legislation. I will also be interested to hear from the experts on school property. I hope they will share whether the proposed changes hold any water at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EOn top of that, as I said, United Future will want to be satisfied that the proposed significant policy changes or new additions to education in this bill are kosher. We will be listening and wanting to hear from the stakeholders in those areas whether they favour those matters. I am sure that most of the education sector stakeholders will want to give us their wisdom, their knowledge from their workplaces, and their opinions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EI am convinced that all Kiwis, or most of us, have an opinion about education. After all, it is a subject we all think we are experts in\u2014one of the criteria being that we all have had an education of sorts. If we are married and have children, we have seen our children go off to be educated, as well. I have got to the stage now where I am seeing my grandchildren go through the same process, and I now have a sharper, keener perception about education, my grandchildren\u2019s growth, and learning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EUnited Future takes a proactive position on this bill, based on the fact that there are many general components within it. We do not see in it many policies that present problems, but there are some provisions that we need to scrutinise, and that is why we will be very happy to see it move forward. As the Minister of Education knows, and as is no secret in the House, it is really hard philosophically for us to agree with some of the education policies that have been proposed in the past by the Minister. They are normally so socialistic and ideologically driven that we have always disagreed, and have acted more as a brake on his madness than anything else. So for United Future to say that the bill should be scrutinised in a select committee is a step forward in that we recognise that we should work together with the Minister so that we can see something achieved in that committee. However, the Minister should note that he is on notice that we will still be very inquisitive and will ask the hard questions in the committee, to ensure that no social engineering takes place or is sneaked in under the radar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThere are a few areas that we will definitely be tracking down on. One has already been mentioned by a number of speakers in the debate, and that is the ID number that is being proposed for every student. The idea is that every child will be tracked through his or her school life, from the age of 3, from early childhood, right on through to his or her tertiary education. Possibly, I imagine, it would go on through to lifelong learning programmes. Children will be given a unique identity number. I have feedback that some mums and dads will no doubt see that as the most controversial part of the bill. After the huge outcry, which we are all very conscious of, that blocked a national ID card being introduced in New Zealand, some are suspicious that this measure could be an under-the-radar-screen attempt to get a similar process going. We believe that public discussion and agreement are critical to this issue. We ask whether it is a sneaky, back-door way to introduce a lost cause of earlier Governments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EI want to touch on two or three of the advantages of the ID number provision that is laid out in the bill. One is that, we are told, it will make it easier to trace truants. We know that the issue of tracking truants was one of Mr Mallard\u2019s proclaimed great centrepieces when he was in Opposition. He has ultimately failed to do anything about the issue, and I am wondering whether this measure will achieve it for him, at all. I have read the bill and I have no assurances that that will be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EAnother argument that is touted as being in favour of an ID number is that it would trace students who have dropped out of the education system. I do not know about that, but I am a little bit perplexed, to be honest. Would it really find such a student who is living under a bridge and smoking P? I have no idea how a number will trace a student who is hiding somewhere. So I have questions about that, and it needs to be looked at in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EAnother aim touted is that it would administer the Government\u2019s 20-hour-a-week free early education programme from 2007 onwards. The thought is that there is a possibility of double-dipping taking place, or rorts going on, and that by having a single number the Government will make sure it eliminates that. I have questions around how effective it will be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThe early childhood education programme elements that are set out here are another area that we will certainly scrutinise. Education, as we all know, is about children learning, and that is certainly not in this bill. That seems to me to be a major omission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EOur questions do need full and complete answers. United Future recommends that the bill go to a select committee so that the committee can hear from submitters, and so that we can make our assessments and modifications, if necessary, and bring those back to the House in 2005.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u00222d6a2a6c45214b8d88a1d2322976a0a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d6a2a6c45214b8d88a1d2322976a0a1\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E I take this call to support the Education Amendment Bill and its committal to the Education and Science Committee. It is a good bill, and it underpins the direction that this Government has signalled since coming into office, and that is that it cares about education. This Government wants all kids to have a good start in life. This Government wants to ensure that all kids reach their full potential, and to ensure that investment in education makes sure that that happens. So I support this bill, and I want to speak to the particular parts that underpin a lot of the Government\u2019s thinking. It is about children getting a good start from the very first point of entry into education, and that is in early childhood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIn September 2002 the Government released its report Pathways to the Future: Ng\u0101 Huarahi Arataki. That was a 10-year strategic plan that set out an agenda for early childhood education. That plan foreshadowed a review of the regulatory system. Parts of those findings are in this bill, and that will ensure that we work towards a good-quality early childhood education system. That is what this bill is all about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI am particularly excited that, for example, in Pukekohe, in the Tainui electorate, we have opened the first purpose-built early childhood education centre. Eighty percent of the students are M\u0101ori, and all those tamariki are keen to wake up every morning and go to that centre. Why? Because they are excited about learning. That is what we want to see happen more often in our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOne of the earlier speakers commented on issues in K\u0101whia. The regional office of the ministry has worked very hard, alongside the K\u0101whia Educational Trust, to make sure that early childhood education is provided in that community. Yes, there have been issues around the qualifications of the teachers there, and, yes, the matter went to court, and, yes, the Government is still committed to working with the trust to find a solution. What might that solution be? The Minister has raised in the House, in response to questions brought up by members of the Opposition, that if the K\u0101whia Educational Trust wants to apply for a provisional licence from the regional office, it is quite able to do that and find a solution and a way forward. I can tell members that all parents in that community are committed to working with this Government to ensure that the centre stays open. They want to see a quality education delivered to their children. They want to see that the teachers deliver good-quality education, and bilingual at that\u2014and I want to see that in all education centres. They know they can work through their issues with this Government, and they know we are committed to these types of things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI think that when the bill goes to the select committee a number of issues may be raised in terms of what is happening across the broader sector of early childhood education. In terms of M\u0101ori participation, it was only with the introduction of k\u014Dhanga reo that we had the first surge of increased participation in early childhood education. Now we are seeing another increased level of participation. I hope those issues are raised at the select committee. I think they are all important issues to be considered by the select committee. I commit the bill to the select committee for consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022190a0b1792b74cab9da7ac1f47a2aeb9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022190a0b1792b74cab9da7ac1f47a2aeb9\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E It speaks volumes about the lack of commitment from this Government to education that in a mad rush before Christmas, under urgency, we are introducing major education legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f8216cb89244b82a365782311dfc2b9\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: National would never do this!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1968e1faa534d9a9a6a8bb8e60b80bc\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I highlight for the member who has just suddenly perked up\u2014he did not want to contribute to the debate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236f361f456424b1d9ad25d6fe303cbc3\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: Remember benefit cuts? I remember those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1c4c1e08ec14990bbdc5188cbd96f2d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member may want to reflect on the fact that in visiting schools in my electorate this month I have gone from one school to another that has a huge deficit. Nelson College and my other major colleges have huge deficits, at the same time as this Government sits on a surplus of $6.3 billion. That is the priority the Government gives to education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe hear from the Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, and from members about early childhood education, and about how much they supposedly care about it. We read on the front page of the Dominion Post today: \u201CRotting playcentre faces closure\u201D. The Government has turned down the Kelburn Playcentre for a grant of $71,000, because, the Minister says, he is not clear about what the issue is. Well, one need only look at the picture in the paper of that disgusting facility in this very city, and that situation exists because of this Government\u2019s early childhood education policies. Is it not interesting that the Minister, Trevor Mallard, can find $755,000\u2014$75,000 more than was asked for\u2014for a k\u014Dhanga reo in his own electorate, but cannot find $71,000 to fix this appalling early childhood education centre? That is a disgrace. That is the sort of policy we get from this Labour Government, and that is one reason why New Zealanders will next year change the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a29e46ec88a48fdb7f08d9ea1fbd003\u0022\u003EGovernment Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb03c5b9ac7b4802a38e557bbe05a84c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: We hear from the arrogant members opposite. That arrogance is also one of the reasons there will be a change of Government. We hear so much from the likes of Chris Carter about how Labour is opposed to discrimination, yet in this bill we see the Government\u2019s early\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218c68542014f40eaab88638c8bf75ded\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will withdraw that remark. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285c0ee8292c7479690a5df962e3b88ea\u0022\u003EHon Chris Carter\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise for calling the member a bigot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022199b90aa80e24f0f86d654c226cdfd88\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that. The member knows he cannot repeat what he has been called to order for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224fd537f0be1423fa3046dfb386d8564\u0022\u003EHon Chris Carter\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4878a74892a4e1c9bc42dabc432b01f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The problem with the Government is that when we attempt to hold it to account for its appalling early childhood education policies and what those policies mean for New Zealand, the best we can get from the Minister is a phrase that I will not repeat\u2014just some personal abuse. What a disgrace to this institution of Parliament! Again, that is why there will be a change of Government next year. People have had a gutsful of that sort of arrogance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe Government is saying in respect of early childhood education that it is not the needs of children that matter\u2014it is political ideology. It says through the provisions of this bill that it is the bricks and mortar of an early childhood education centre that matter, not the quality of the care and not the needs of the children. We will see thousands of children in New Zealand discriminated against simply because their parents choose to use an independent early childhood education provider, and that is a serious mistake. This bill further chips away at parents\u2019 choices and rights. There is absolutely no respect in this Government for the fact that parents play an absolutely pivotal role in raising children, and that they should be able to have a choice about where their children go for early childhood education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe also see in this bill further development of the mess in respect of the issues around the qualifications of people in charge of early childhood education centres. What the Government has done in that area is an absolute mess, and, as Treasury has rightly said, it will see up to 400 early childhood education centres start 2005 in breach of the mad regulations that have been passed by this Government. The Government is so obsessed with regulation that it says of people who have served early childhood education well for 20 to 30 years: \u201CNo, you\u2019re not good enough. You can no longer be in charge of an early childhood centre.\u201D The mistake it has made is although it is acceptable for the Government to say that a new qualification\u2014a diploma\u2014is required for someone to be in charge of an early childhood education centre, it is wrong and it is insulting to say to a 50-year-old person, generally a woman, who has served in early childhood education centres, has years of experience, and is very good at the job: \u201CSorry, for Labour you\u2019re not good enough. We\u2019re changing the rules. We\u2019re going to dump you on the scrap heap.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6854abd1b054a799bfdb918813b7df8\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What is National\u2019s policy on that? Is it going to repeal that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022014f8d7d7d1c45659466383af8889e1c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I tell the member that National\u2019s policy is very simple. It is the same policy that we had when we were in Government, a good policy that had support, and it is that it is OK to have a diploma requirement for new people coming into the sector. That is what we have for doctors. That is what we have for accountants. That is what we have for engineers. Why, when it comes to the early childhood education sector, are we going to throw away very experienced people by having a new requirement in that regard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to raise concerns specifically about section 139C, inserted by clause 29. I will read what it says, because it is quite bizarre. Again, it shows the way in which this Government will screw the scrum to suit its own. The section states: \u201CEvery person commits an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, who, while on the premises of any registered school \u2026 and within the presence or hearing of any student of the school, intentionally insults, abuses, or intimidates any teacher or member of staff of the school.\u201D Members may ask what is wrong with that. Well, I first want to ask what is different about a school. All sorts of personal relationships and tensions arise, but why is this provision only in respect of a teaching staff member? It is true that there are parents who have abused and insulted teachers. It is also true that teachers have abused and insulted parents. But why does the law cover the relationship going only one way? Why do we have that special protection for the teacher but not for the principal? There will be many who see it simply as a provision\u2014as so correctly pointed out by Bill English\u2014that many principals who are trying to get a better performance out of their teachers will have used against them as they try to raise the standards in our schools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMy real question is why we have to have this special provision regarding insults, abuse, and intimidation in schools alone. Why does it not apply to hospitals or to Parliament? Why do we not have it in all other areas? Why are we creating a specific law for teachers only, when there is nothing for parents, and when it is all about changing the power balance? This Government is determined to undermine the leadership role that principals play in our schools, to undermine the role parents have in choosing which school to send their children to, and to undermine the right of parents to choose where they send their children for early childhood education. This section 139C, which is intended to make a criminal of a parent simply for questioning a teacher about his or her child, is over the top. Even if our criminal law currently is not satisfactory, there is no reason for creating a special law that applies just within schools, and that provides for the protection of teachers alone. It suggests that it is only principals or parents who ever insult, abuse, or intimidate people. I say that it is just another dose of political correctness from this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAgain, I stress that it is a disgrace that Parliament, under urgency, is debating such important legislation in a mad rush. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9158fa623db49beb1929285cf3119d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9158fa623db49beb1929285cf3119d8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E People listening to the contribution of that member from the Nelson area, Nick Smith, would have just been reminded again of something we hear so often from him\u2014that is, negativity, negativity, negativity. All we hear is whinge, moan, and whine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EThat member never acknowledges the fact that this Government has increased spending on education by 40 percent since 1999, and that there is not a school in this country that has not benefited from a massive burst in building. I know that every one of the 27 schools in my electorate of Te Atatu in west Auckland has had a new building project in the last 2 years. Principals have laptops, there is extra staffing, the operations grant has gone up, and so it goes on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EThis Government is absolutely committed to education, because we see it as the tool for improving the chances of every person in New Zealand to get ahead in life. We are the Government of education. No Government has delivered more for education than this Government, and this Education Amendment Bill we are debating today is part of the package of resources that this Government, under the very wise leadership of the Minister of Education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, is giving to this country to shape a better education service. It is through the schools of New Zealand that we will change society, give that chance for everybody to get ahead, and build a strong economy and a better-educated nation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EThis is excellent legislation. It builds on the incredible progress we have made over the last 5 years in the education sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u002241302fe0f69744298ea70652676e9ced\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241302fe0f69744298ea70652676e9ced\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E That speech was made by a member who has been away from the classroom for too long. He no longer has any understanding of the classrooms of today. The speech was made by a Minister in a Government that has closed schools. In actual fact, 2004 will go down as a year in which the Government closed more schools than it opened, and, even more ironically for a party that espouses the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the core components of its thinking, a year in which the Government has done more to deny that reality in its day-to-day practice in relation to schools by closing down schools with significant M\u0101ori rolls. So as the Minister departs from the Chamber, I say \u201CSo be it.\u201D I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Education Amendment Bill that is before the House, but I am confused about where I should start because in these omnibus, wash-up bills there is so much elusive material. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI will look first of all at clause 4, where a little slip states that the phrase \u201Cfor an unspecified period\u201D is to be taken out of section 14(1)(b) of the principal Act. There is no explanation given of that. Yet there is one, because those who have been in schools know about the immense problems of stand-downs and suspensions. They know that the figures the Ministry of Education has in its database are not correct. I have been collecting figures from Northland schools throughout this year, and I can say absolutely that the ministry\u2019s figures for stand-downs in some of those schools are not correct, at all. In fact, many schools do not want to tell the wider world just how serious the problem is in their schools, with robust children and robust communities. No one wants to be upfront, but the figures are there in reality, and the figures, if they were real, would show that a large number of schools have problems even in maintaining day-to-day order and discipline. In clause 4 there is a solution. For some strange reason, we are to take out the phrase \u201Cfor an unspecified period\u201D, which has historically been part of the wording of the provision since the 1989 Act and before that in regard to \u201Cgross misbehaviour or continual disobedience\u201D, or the situation of a student\u2019s behaviour making it \u201Clikely that that student or other students will be seriously harmed\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EBut that leaves an issue. If the word \u201Cunspecified\u201D is taken out, which is the current term used by boards of trustees, there is the lurking suspicion in my mind that boards will then have to justify a specified period. If they have to justify why there is a specified period, that will introduce into the whole business of school stand-downs and suspensions a whole new category\u2014a very interesting category for boards that are endeavouring to maintain fair order and discipline in the classroom, and endeavouring to maintain that safety in the classroom, room by room, is paramount with regard to the operation of their charters in their schools. So I believe that schools ought to be aware of that major issue, and I hope schools will bring submissions on it to the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat issue is also behind the whole issue of truancy. If ever there was an issue that the Ministry of Education has not handled with any great ability, I say it is the issue of truancy. Throughout the 1990s\u2014at least in the late 1990s\u2014there was a move towards dealing with truanting students and students who were not being recorded. And that brings me to the matter of the national truancy database. The issue is that there were thousands of truanting students in the 1990s. In Auckland, an estimated 7,400 students under the age of 16 were not in any school. They were unrecognised and unrecorded, and the numbers today are not much changed. In other words, after almost a decade of tracking and monitoring truancy in schools the situation has not changed, and the moves in this bill will not make things any better. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe other issues are these. Why would the Minister remove the function of requiring boards to provide an annual report to the community? Why are those reports to be no longer a requirement? Why would a board of trustees not wish to have an annual meeting at which it presents the annual report? Why would a board not wish to be scrutinised by the community, and have dialogue with parents on the proper function of recognising whether a school is doing its job?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bcff143513b404381d6cd4133785153\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: What have they got to hide?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a158a7e8307f4221887f37311e3d2862\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: That is right\u2014exactly. In this day of spin, of public relations people working for schools, it simply fits in with that that if boards can get away with not presenting their annual report, and can send it off to the Minister of Education via the local regional office, that will be it. That is what the suggested amendment will allow. It is just not good enough. We are living an age when schools that do not have favourable Education Review Office reports will not bother to publish their community report. They will now no longer be required even to meet with their community to discuss the annual report, and the effectiveness, quality, and competence of their staff. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the next matter. If ever there was an organisation that has performed dismally, with successive chief executive officers coming and going every year, it is the Teachers Council. I can say that the Teacher Registration Board did a far, far superior job, working with limited staff and within the framework that it had. So here we have the suggested disciplinary functions of the board being enhanced when the board does not have a reliable database, and when there are unqualified teachers who have just finished in schools\u2014teachers who were not experienced in any sense. But, worse than that, many people are working beyond the 20 half-days allowed for unqualified persons to work in schools, and the council has no ability to do anything about it. When applications are made to the council\u2014and they were being made over the last year\u2014the delay in processing them was not just days; it was weeks and sometimes months. So we have an inoperative system. The council ought to be out there, scrutinising\u2014and it should be in 2005\u2014to ensure that every teacher is registered and qualified, and that those who are not qualified serve for no more than 20 half-days. In fact that has not been happening, and it will not happen after this bill is passed. Yet the board is demanding greater powers of discipline\u2014to hear what? I hope that those who come before the select committee will demand an answer to that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe other matter that I want to quickly mention is clause 32, \u201CPreparing charters\u201D. There is an underlying issue there about why there is, and has been, some disparity between the charters of industry training organisations and the acceptance of those charters by that fabulous group known as the Tertiary Education Commission. We all know that the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act of 2002 had many pains in its set-up period. It is no wonder that that was the case, because the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and those who are responsible tried to take a Skill New Zealand group and incorporate it into a group that had tertiary oversight of the polytechnics in a major way\u2014and universities\u2014and did not give it the required staff or funding. The set-up period of what was called reforming legislation has actually shown no ability for there to be reform, at all. I find the final acceptance of the alignment of the tertiary charters with the needs of industry training groups to be quite interesting. That provision seems to have a history to it, and it would be very interesting if one knew what it was all about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIn summary, in an omnibus sense the amendments in this bill may seem to be just a tidy-up, but I want to come back to the first one. What does \u201Cunspecified removal\u201D mean? It means problems for schools and boards of trustees. What does it mean when the annual reporting requirement is taken away? It means a lack of accountability on a face-to-face basis\u2014parent to teacher, and teacher to the community. And what does a change in the Teachers Council rules mean? It means more of the same: a supposed workload, and a supposed ability to monitor effectiveness and the quality of teaching, but in actual fact the reality that because of how that group has worked out in a practical way nothing will be changed from this day on, despite the intention that there should be change. I look forward to hearing and seeing the submissions that are made on the bill, because these matters are worthy of serious attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u00229c3f8e04e422466d93e266b2a8c27bf3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c3f8e04e422466d93e266b2a8c27bf3\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take a very brief call on this bill. The debate on it has been very good and very constructive. Research has clearly shown that children who participate in early childhood education get a better start in life, and are more likely to succeed later on as they progress through the education sector. I am very pleased to support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EBill read a first time, and referred to the Education and Science Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002215ce76f287794ffb84e0ef91fb35025f\u0022\u003ECoroners Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002254eadb6dc1d2474fa3b540b24c2708bc\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u00229c34da615d8340f88b10eb5bbd0f3cd5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c34da615d8340f88b10eb5bbd0f3cd5\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Associate Minister for Courts: I move, That the Coroners Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act of 1988. The bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners\u2019 investigations and decision making, and by taking better account of the diverse needs of families. Coroners inquire into certain deaths, in order to uphold human rights. Coroners establish, so far as is possible, the causes and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or explained deaths, and of death in other special circumstances, such as where a person was in the care of the State. Balancing the needs of families with the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths can be difficult. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EAlthough the Act included provisions to address cultural sensitivities, those provisions have sometimes not had their intended effect. The Law Commission became aware of the concerns about coronial practice while consulting with M\u0101ori on its review of succession law, and decided to undertake a separate project on the Act. Its report on the Act was tabled in August 2000. Many submitters to the Law Commission said that despite the high ability and sensitivity of many people involved in the coronial process, the current system was haphazard, patchy, unsystematic, and inadequate. That was partly due to having more than 70 coroners with different levels of qualifications and experience, and no training programmes. Coroners mostly work part-time, often in isolation, and have limited administrative support. The Law Commission highlighted a perception that the coronial system did not take enough account of cultural beliefs and values, especially those of M\u0101ori. There were also reports of some coronial practices being insensitive to the needs of families. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EA review of the Act, based on the Law Commission\u2019s recommendations, contained a number of objectives. Those included enhancing public confidence in the integrity and independence of the system, taking better account of families\u2019 diverse cultural and spiritual needs, maintaining the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths in an accurate and a timely way, and promoting cooperation between coroners and other authorities also involved in the investigation of deaths. This bill draws on both the Law Commission\u2019s recommendations and the Government\u2019s review. The key elements of the bill are establishing the office of Chief Coroner, moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners, ensuring families are notified at significant steps of the coronial process, introducing a specific regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples, and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I will now talk about those elements in greater detail. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe appointment of a chief coroner was the key recommendation of the Law Commission, and it has been widely supported. The chief coroner will help to manage workloads, improve coordination within the coronial process, provide support to coroners, and undertake a wider liaison role. There will be fewer coroners in the new system, but they will be well trained and work closely together to deliver a consistent, high-quality standard of practice. At present, most coroners deal with only a small number of cases a year. Moving to a system of largely full-time positions will enable coroners to develop greater expertise, and will improve the timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners will also have more time to undertake public education and develop closer relationships with other investigating authorities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe definition of \u201Cimmediate family\u201D has been broadened in order to better take into account the diverse family relationships in New Zealand. The coroner will be required to notify the family of significant matters in the coronial process, such as the post-mortem examination, the opening of an inquiry, and the date, time, and location of an inquest. A family will be able to appoint a representative to liaise with the coroner on its behalf. With the coroner\u2019s authorisation, the family may be able to view, touch, or remain near the body, although the coroner may impose some conditions, such as requiring a police officer to be present. In certain cases the family will be able to object to a post-mortem, and may also be able to have a doctor, registered nurse, or funeral director present at the post-mortem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe current Act is silent about the retention of body parts. Under this bill, a coroner can authorise the retention of any body part or tissue that a pathologist considers to be necessary for a post-mortem, but for no other purpose without the consent of the family. The coroner will be required to inform the family about the reasons for, and the duration of, the retention of body parts. Families will be able to specify how retained body parts are to be dealt with when they are no longer required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe bill includes new evidence provisions around inquiries and inquests. Coroners will be able to require people to provide specified information, to assist their inquiry. If necessary, a District Court judge will be able to issue a warrant for the police to search for that information. That will ensure that people cannot obstruct coroners by withholding information. Family members will continue to be able to attend inquests, and to ask questions about a death and the events leading up to it. The provisions allowing a coroner to prohibit information from being made public in the interests of justice, decency, or public order have been extended to include personal privacy. The restrictions on the publication of self-inflicted deaths have been retained. However, coroners may allow particulars about a self-inflicted death to be made public where that is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe provisions I have outlined today will make a major improvement in the coronial system. I would like to pay tribute to the many coroners who have served our communities over the years. Coroners deal with many of the saddest and most difficult aspects of death. I am confident that coroners appointed under the new Act will continue to show the dedication of their predecessors, and that the new Act will enhance public confidence in the coronial system. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022c23b62156dfa484b91c4c4404d4f6792\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c23b62156dfa484b91c4c4404d4f6792\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E Maybe the Minister for Courts can advise, by way of interjection, which select committee he is referring the bill to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215162fdc8b5c46babcfc1e8756dd9cdc\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: The Justice and Electoral Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c11ae3fee6d14a07a498c519a1e6c42b\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: Being the first Opposition speaker on this bill\u2014my colleague Mrs Collins will be talking about a number of more technical matters associated with it\u2014I want to draw to the House\u2019s attention a matter associated with coronial services in New Zealand, and that is the critical shortage of forensic pathologists. There is a critical shortage of pathologists who undertake forensic pathology work and who deal with coronial work nationwide. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe Ministry of Justice has consulted widely on establishing a forensic pathology group in New Zealand, but nothing has happened from the Government. Earlier this year it was reported that a Budget initiative was being worked on, but the Budget this year was absolutely silent on any issue dealing with forensic pathology services. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EForensic pathologists are the people who conduct the quite in-depth autopsies that, for example, have been popularised by American television programmes, which predominantly are on TV3. The problem we are currently seeing in the system is a significant shortage of forensic pathologists in the country. There are retention and recruitment problems, remuneration problems, and an inability to attract overseas pathologists. Earlier this year there was no permanent forensic pathology coverage south of Auckland, and today only five, six, or seven forensic pathologists are available for the whole country. Currently, the coroner-directed pathology services in New Zealand are organised by the Ministry of Justice. It is vital that this Government moves to restore the capacity for forensic pathology in New Zealand. We need certainty in those services, to ensure that we have a competent criminal justice system and coronial service system in New Zealand. Unfortunately, I am sure there are no financial benefits in any move, but it is something that needs to be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI understand that the Government has been warned that public confidence in coronial services in New Zealand is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists. Would the Minister like to confirm that? The Minister will not say anything, but I am 100 percent certain that the Government has been warned that public confidence in our coronial services is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI will look at some of those risks. The public must be confident that suspicious deaths and homicides can be adequately investigated by skilled staff. The police need to know, and coronial investigations may be severely compromised by the significant delays from not having enough forensic pathologists. There is a serious risk that the Government may have to contract in overseas pathologists, at tremendous cost, because of the shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand needs a coordinated and structured system, with good recruitment, retention, training, and quality standards, for forensic pathologists. Such a move would certainly assist the New Zealand Police to deal with those matters. So I say to the Government that passing the Coroners Bill is fine, but one of the fundamental jobs of coroners is to determine the nature of death, and to do that they need top-quality forensic pathologists. So it is urgent, in my view, that police and coronial investigations are supported by upgraded forensic pathology services in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWhen I first raised this matter in February this year, the Government dismissed my concerns on the basis that it was preparing a Budget bid. A Budget proposal reportedly had been put to the Government that would ensure there would be enough people and resources to keep it that way. Well, I have looked through the Budget documents and there was not one vote of additional money to address what has been described as a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. At that time, a forensic pathologist in New Zealand said that the service was short of staff, the overall funding was deficient, and there was no allocation to train people properly. He said that until we know for sure that money is granted in the Budget, there is not much point in claiming things are fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003ESo the National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Coroners Bill. My colleague Mrs Collins, the National Party\u2019s effective health spokesperson, will be spending some time looking at some of the more complex detail associated with this bill, and at the impact that some of the issues requiring cultural awareness may have on coroner services in New Zealand. But in this lead speech we want to highlight to the Government that there is no point in reforming coroner services alone when there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWe understand that the Government has been warned there are significant risks associated with this lack of capacity. Those risks are around public confidence that unexplained deaths and homicides can be appropriately investigated, and the police and coroners having a timely response in their investigations. There is also the risk of the cost of bringing in expensive overseas forensic pathologists to deal with deaths in New Zealand. This is a time when a Government that says there is not enough money for tax relief to reward hard-working New Zealanders should realise that there must be enough money to provide competent forensic pathology services in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI would like a Minister to take the next call on behalf of the Government to advise the House whether the Government has been warned of the critical shortage of forensic pathologists, and whether a Budget bid was put to the Government by the Ministry of Justice. We know that the bid must have been declined, because there was no mention of it in the Budget documents. We ask what is going to be done about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWe know that the latest skills shortage list put out by the Immigration Service makes it clear that pathologists are on the list. The list came out on 13 December, and we are still trying to get some confirmation of further details on the numbers. However, it is clear that the Government\u2019s skills shortage list, which came out on 13 December\u2014very recently\u2014is an admission that there is a shortage of pathologists. Frankly, I do not think the Government putting pathologists on a list of occupations that will be given priority in terms of immigration will fix the problem, which it was alerted to earlier this year. We know that a Budget bid was being prepared, but there is no mention of it in the official documents\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b0f5f335b6445afad0302b3409e5c94\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: This is tedious repetition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279b0821c08ab42b1a40658ca9fbc6268\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: It may be repetition to the Minister with the bouffant hairdo, but it is important the Government knows that this is an important issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThis Minister of Health, who is happy to have women with breast cancer go to Australia for treatment because she cannot get the money, has a big problem. This woman Minister of Health is prepared to let women languish on cancer treatment waiting lists, then send them to Australia for treatment. What sort of caring woman Minister of Health is she? I wonder whether that is the reason she will not be the Minister of Health on Monday. The Government, which is dominated by women, is prepared to let other women languish on breast cancer treatment waiting lists\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228503a5e24f8549c79bb84cdd472d119a\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: You wouldn\u2019t know what you are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c343933891664097afbd83ddb269dd55\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: I tell the Minister to come and talk to the people in my electorate who were forced to go to Australia, forced to seek private treatment, because the Government would not address the issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI am alerting this Minister of Health\u2014just for another 3 days\u2014that there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in this country. She knows about it, and she should do something about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00229710d6c399ed4d9581726af61b1bb9cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229710d6c399ed4d9581726af61b1bb9cb\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I ask both members involved to look at Speaker\u2019s ruling 49/6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022c504a6c4d00a4b3ea3c42ecdd55b5f32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c504a6c4d00a4b3ea3c42ecdd55b5f32\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E A lot of bills have been dealt with under this urgency motion and, in the main, the debate has been polite and constructive, so I apologise for the contribution that has just come from Tony Ryall of the National Party. This is an important bill. It is about a very sensitive matter. It is about something that most of us do not like to consider, which is the death of family and loved ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EMy mother passed away just last month and, because her general practitioner was not in town, other services had to be involved at the time of her passing. The officers with whom I was required to communicate following my mother\u2019s sudden passing were nothing but professional, kind, courteous, and considerate. Coroners play a huge role in assisting family members at a time that is most difficult for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EThis bill includes a provision for establishing the office of Chief Coroner. We will also move to having a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners, and special steps will be taken to ensure that families are notified of the significant stages that occur during the coronial process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EOne of the other provisions will be that full-time coroners will have more time to undertake public education. I know, from attending various courses in my own area long before I came into Parliament, that coroners involve themselves in talking to groups involved in the community about their role, and about how they might best assist families and other people in the community at a difficult time such as the death of a family member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003EThis bill has been long awaited and I am confident it will go a long way to enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I look forward to it passing through the select committee and being reported back to the House as it is a means of assisting the coronial officers themselves and the community at large. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022e871fa44887148a9ba63c3d0073ac788\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e871fa44887148a9ba63c3d0073ac788\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E The Labour member who spoke before me had no answer to the matters raised by the Hon Tony Ryall. The Labour Government has totally ignored the need for forensic pathologists in New Zealand. It has done absolutely nothing about it, despite protestations earlier this year, and it is very clear that it is embarrassed about the whole situation; hence the member\u2019s failure to mention it even once in her response. The Minister of Health\u2014for the time being\u2014was prepared to interject furiously on Tony Ryall, but she was not prepared to take a call and give us an explanation for this deficiency that is so pertinent to coroners. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022947722a614f74d0b9d071af615739747\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the Minister of Justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d988d2723a1c4bcdb4d8d3d44cffed6c\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I would have thought that coroners and forensic pathologists\u2014while they might be forensic, they are also pathologists\u2014had something to do with the cutting up of people, which might involve a health aspect, as well. As far as these interjections are concerned, I say they are wonderful, but I hope the Minister will take a call at some stage rather than just interject in the debate on a bill that in a small way is yet another example of social engineering by the Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs I read the explanatory note and worked my way through the bill, I was interested to see that once again there was a reference to the family. I decided to have a look at how the family was defined this time. The reference, of course, under clause 7 is to the \u201Cimmediate family\u201D, which is defined: \u201C(a) means members of the dead person\u2019s family, wh\u0101nau, or other culturally recognised family group, who\u2014(i) were in a close relationship with the person; or (ii) had, in accordance with customs or traditions of the community of which the person was part, responsibility for, or an interest in, the person\u2019s welfare and best interests;\u201D\u2014that is pretty wide\u2014\u201Cand (b) to avoid doubt,\u201D\u2014which is clumsy drafting\u2014\u201Cincludes a person whose relationship to the dead person was, or was through, that of spouse or de facto partner (whether the partner and dead person were of the same sex or different sexes), child or step-child, brother or step-brother, sister or step-sister, parent or step-parent or guardian, or grandparent\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe Labour Government cannot help but bring in the same-sex situation once again in legislation. Here we are on what is allegedly the last day of this Parliament\u2014I am told there is a rumour going around that we might be back here next Tuesday, perhaps because of a failure on someone\u2019s part to support urgency\u2014Tuesday, 14 December in parliamentary time, pushing through yet another aspect of social engineering by this minority Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWhat is so important about this legislation? Well, for example, when we look at clause 31, \u201CRight in some cases to object to post-mortem\u201D, we see that subclause (1) relates to a post-mortem on a body that a coroner proposes to direct. We can ask who can object to the post-mortem. Subclause (2) is a terribly wide subclause. It states: \u201CEvery member of the immediate family\u201D\u2014and I have just read out the definition of \u201Cimmediate family\u201D\u2014\u201Cof the person who is, or of a person who is suspected to be, the dead person concerned has, in the situation specified in subsection (3), a right to object to the post-mortem.\u201D What a wide-ranging group of people we have there. Even someone who might have had a short-term relationship with the deceased person will have the right to object to the post-mortem. In subclause (3)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2115b00eaab46f7a3be86e1192c1d2b\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: It could be the person who murdered them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f24b0cbebae4e61b1ad7ef0e447c67d\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: It could be the person who killed them; that is right. The person who murdered the deceased could have the right to object to the post-mortem. What sort of legislation is this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESubclause (3) states: \u201CThe situation referred to in subsection (2) is that the coroner is, after having made all reasonable investigations, satisfied that,\u201D\u2014and various provisions are set out, including, of course, the provision that the coroner must comply with \u201CNew Zealand\u2019s international legal obligations\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESo many United Nations conventions today are so airy-fairy that I pity the coroner trying to work his way through some international conventions. I can imagine that some of the many immigrants coming to New Zealand today, who may have certain requirements as to the way in which deceased people should be taken care of, etc., will raise a United Nations international convention that applies to some other, unusual part of the world, and the coroner will have to give recognition to that, necessarily, rather than to all the laws of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere could be the situation of a mum and dad whose son or daughter has died\u2014a son or daughter who had left home shortly beforehand and who was living in a relationship which was a same-sex relationship\u2014and we have the same-sex partner saying: \u201CI\u2019ve got rights to object to a post-mortem.\u201D What are mum and dad going to say about that situation? Their dearly beloved child has died, and no matter how old the person is, he or she is still a child as far as parents are concerned; he or she is still 6 years old and just going off to school, which is something one always remembers. But in this situation there is some same-sex partner who can object to those parents having a post-mortem in what might be very unusual circumstances. That is what we get from this Labour Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThat is what we also get from the United Future party, which obviously supports this bill. But it is not surprising that the United Future party supports something like this. I was listening to Gordon Copeland earlier this morning speaking on a tax bill, and he referred to what is going to be in the report of the Social Services Committee on the Charities Bill. That report has not been tabled in the House as yet, but Gordon Copeland was speaking on it earlier this morning. What is more, he has even issued a press statement on it. Murray Smith can smile but that report had not been tabled in the House as at 10.40 a.m., yet we have Gordon Copeland speaking on it and issuing press statements on it, and all that United Future member can do is smile. Gordon Copeland issued a press statement at 10.13 a.m. on something that has not been reported to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWell, that is the United Future party. That is its standard on this particular legislation, which includes same-sex relationships, and it has issued a statement that is politically dishonest, at least, in commenting on a select committee report before it has even been tabled in the House. Needless to say, that matter will be considered elsewhere, as far as I am concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWhat we should be doing, for example, is taking a closer look at things like the report the Business Roundtable released today on having more regard for family life\u2014not the sort of thing that is in the bill. In the report, Patricia Morgan concludes that \u201Cusing all of the standard indicators, the family is now in a worse state in New Zealand than almost anywhere else.\u201D The report states that her book \u201Creports a large body of research that finds that the traditional family\u2014the married couple and their dependent children living together in their own home\u2014is generally best for children, parents and society.\u201D We would have thought that the Government might have learnt a lesson from what happened last week and before but, no, that type of situation still continues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EHere we are on Tuesday, 14 December, but some people might think it was Friday. We should have discussed this legislation last week. Instead, we are being forced to go through urgency on a bill that should be discussed at a better time when people normally expect Parliament to be on the air and when it is available to be visited as part of a trip to Wellington. But we are discussing this bill today, on a Friday, and we are delaying other bills. I am pleased to see that the Gambling Amendment Bill is up for discussion next. That bill could have been discussed last week rather than this week, but of course the Labour Government wanted to ram all these first readings through now rather than doing them at a more leisurely pace last week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, but the public of New Zealand can be sure that we will be doing our very best to make sure that the murderer of a person has no right to object to a post-mortem that is a vital matter of evidence in a court case. That is something we would have expected a Minister to take into account when preparing such a bill, but obviously the Labour Government has no regard for law and order matters. New Zealand First will be making sure that these types of things are taken care of in the select committee. We support the bill going to the select committee, and we will be looking closely at it there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022442e2bda794b4d4983bcc96f843e56df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022442e2bda794b4d4983bcc96f843e56df\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E I have had a quick look at the Coroners Bill and at the amendments it proposes to make in terms of how coroners operate today. The National Party is supporting the bill going to the select committee, but with some concerns. Some of these concerns have been noted by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall, particularly in relation to the fact that no matter what we do about coroners and their work, if we do not have enough pathologists a lot of what the coroners do is somewhat after the event or somewhat pie in the sky. We need the pathologists to give us the evidence that the coroners need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EOne of my concerns is the move towards having just a few full-time coroners. One of the things I particularly like about the current system is that so many coroners work independently as lawyers, often in general practice, where a great deal of common sense is required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022969001b02e9146beb7b178cbcb7663a8\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Independent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235690c3015c549909588881636a74c46\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: We do not want coroners who have always been hugely independent, as Mr Franks has just noted, and outside of the establishment, to become part of yet another branch of the public service, with possibly the same sorts of constraints that some judges and tribunal members now find themselves working under. We do not want coroners losing their feeling of independence and their ability to say what they need to have happen so that they can come to the right decisions. I do have some concerns about that. It is certainly an issue the National Party members of the select committee will be taking up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIn addition, I note with some concern the wider definition of \u201Cimmediate family\u201D and family generally. Like Mr Jones, I have some concern about this particular provision. When I had a quick look through the bill, its background, and the Bills Digest, I noted that there seems to be a huge amount of political correctness coming into the coroners\u2019 court. It is a concern when we in New Zealand are so desperate in our need to be multicultural that we actually forget that we have a culture ourselves\u2014it is called the New Zealand culture\u2014and that some of the reasons some other cultures had for various burial practices have actually passed. We no longer live in an age without refrigeration. We no longer live in an age when people cannot be embalmed. We do not have the sorts of constraints that many other cultures had when they set up their burial practices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that we should not, in our rush to embrace all cultures, forget the fact that the coroners\u2019 court is there for a reason. It is primarily there to find the cause of death when the reason is not particularly obvious, or when a death is sudden and unexpected. So in relation to people who murder other people\u2014and Mr Jones took up this point\u2014the last thing that we want is a system that is so PC, where we bend so far over backwards to take into account every person who might ever be interested in someone\u2019s death, that a murderer is able to prevent a post-mortem. That is a really big concern that we have. One of the reasons for that concern is that most people who are murdered are murdered by the person they were living with or someone they once lived with. Strangers very seldom go around murdering others. So I think we need to be very careful about that. I am sure it is something the select committee will look at and get further advice on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022799cb6cac6b54d28827434d5d36a9cfb\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Come and help us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022297a113137254c22bc64855e33f47dd4\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Franks wants me back on the Justice and Electoral Committee, but I am passionate about health, unlike the Minister, who is leaving the health portfolio on Monday. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EBurial practices and deaths are something that particularly concern people. There is one thing that is certain\u2014more certain than the fact that this Government will never come up with a decent tax policy\u2014and that is that we will all die one day. I always come to this House thinking that every day is a wonderful day because it is a day I am not dead and it is a day I will be able to stand up for the ordinary, common-sense people of New Zealand. I certainly would not want to give anyone on the other side of the House any pleasure by dying early! Death is not a laughing matter, but we do tend to have a bit of humour about it because we all know that it will come to us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIt is important when we have unexplained deaths that we have a coronial system that takes into account people\u2019s sensitivities but does not, and must not, bend over backwards so far that the truth is lost. I am not sure where the call for this bill has come from. But I see in the bill\u2019s explanatory note that M\u0101ori had some concerns about coronial practices. The explanatory note states: \u201C\u2026 while undertaking consultation with M\u0101ori for its review of succession law, the Law Commission became aware of concerns about coroners.\u201D I am not quite aware of why we need a whole new bill and why any genuine concerns cannot be dealt with, without impinging on the coroners\u2019 role, by way of practice notes or those sorts of matters. By putting through a bill like this we are having this whole area looked at again. In particular I am concerned about the cost of it, given that we do not have enough pathologists\u2014so the whole thing could be a bit of a moot point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EWe do not seem to be doing anything about getting more pathologists, and I am concerned that by making a coroner\u2019s position a full-time job, we will lose the top people we currently have in the role. It will not be a hugely career-enhancing role, I would have thought, to become a full-time coroner. It might be something that some Labour MP who has been tossed out of Parliament and who once had a practising certificate would want to be. But the reality is that I do not think it will be a career-enhancing role. There will not be many people coming out of law school in their 20s saying \u201CWhat I really want to be in life is a coroner\u201D. Even someone who is successful in practice probably will not want to move into that particular role in their 30s or 40s. At the moment, the current system allows people who are very experienced, very good, and into common-sense solutions to be able to take on that role. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI am also concerned that it will be anticipated that the coroners will now operate in the smaller centres, as well. One of the reasons I am concerned about that is not that I do not want smaller centres to have the benefit of coroners, but that I know that one of the problems judges have at the moment is the way they are traipsing around the country trying to fulfil their particular roles in relation to all the different districts. The High Court judges have the same issue. Of course, one of the problems with trying to get good people into those jobs is that many people who have families and commitments in their own homes do not want to be traipsing around the country for weeks on end for these sorts of hearings. It is certainly one of the issues that coroners, or those who wish to become coroners, will take into account when they decide whether to take up positions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003ESo I have some concerns about the bill, and the National Party has some concerns, and we will be looking at those and teasing them out during the select committee process. Hopefully, we will be satisfied after some changes have been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bb1d4d3c752d416cb7f32dafb294dc07\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002210b31af2598e4ab0939d940d7991b808\u0022\u003EQuestions for Written Answer\u2014System Breakdown\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00221b79cf72bcb34d91ab3f670360ab35dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b79cf72bcb34d91ab3f670360ab35dc\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking some guidance from you. I understand from correspondence that has just been passed to me that a problem has been identified with the system for lodging questions for written answer. I am advised that the system is presently refusing to accept questions when they are signed electronically by members. The text completely disappears, and repeated attempts to enter the questions have ended in the same result. Bearing in mind the very vague possibility that this could be the last day to lodge written questions, two issues arise. Firstly, what remedy is available to members who are presently, and have previously been, involved in lodging written questions for the next sitting day, which presumably will not be until February? Secondly, what consequence does that have for the time limits around lodging those questions prior to the House rising\u2014whether that be Saturday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of next week? The question arises as to what remedies are being made available to members, particularly as we are nearing the end of the year. I seek the Speaker\u2019s guidance to members who are presently attempting to lodge questions as to how that process will pan out. In particular, I seek an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged by what appears to be, from the correspondence I have seen, a problem with the system. I seek your guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022da60dd37c4994826899d2dca1ee29c46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da60dd37c4994826899d2dca1ee29c46\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. It is a technical issue and it is being worked on right at this moment. The intention is not to inconvenience or disadvantage members at all. As to my advice to members, I think they should just proceed along their normal course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u002253e7ae32228f4d6999d1b4a0a0ff3f5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253e7ae32228f4d6999d1b4a0a0ff3f5d\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the Speaker to advise the House when that process has been remedied, and in particular to emphasise the fact that no member will be disadvantaged as a result of the glitch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022541205cde6224f9fb41332e30df158f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022541205cde6224f9fb41332e30df158f8\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. That information will be given as soon as we can, which will be in the not too distant future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224084bdde236a455288afa44636be0c9e\u0022\u003ECoroners Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022081686a2371f4e74ad0409c74931a04f\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000293\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022f372d6c1155d4e2e9b07ff40e8addfd0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f372d6c1155d4e2e9b07ff40e8addfd0\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The Coroners Bill deals with a matter that may seem very remote to most people, and nearly everyone would want it to stay remote. But it touches one of those assurances of probity in public and private life that a country like New Zealand has taken for granted for many years. I think of the contrast with, for example, the Ukraine, where the presidential candidate, who might have been the successful candidate if there had not been electoral irregularities, had to go to Austria to find people who could be trusted to investigate his poisoning. My concern about the bill that has come before us is that it may be part of a trend to centralise and streamline\u2014as the proponents of the bill think it is\u2014functions that have been powerful simply because they are distributed, because they have been on occasion amateur or quirky, and because there is room for coroners around the country to pursue matters that might not necessarily have been seen by a central authority as the priority, as popular, or even as desirable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EMy concern about the bill is that the appointment of a Chief Coroner, which is seemingly an efficiency measure to provide someone to coordinate and represent coroners as a body, and the reduction of the number of coroners to 20 full-time equivalents, could end up giving us\u2014I will not say a coronary\u2014a system of coronary inquiries that would be less reliable than what we have now. That is not because the system is not technically improved by the bill, and I am sure there is room for that, but because that quirkiness, that independence, and that character of having been drawn from the community and being part of the normal networks of gossip, of social contact, that coroners have at present may not be replicated if coroners become professional and much more clearly agents of the State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIn particular, I am concerned that the bill represents a triumph of political correctness, and that that may be a foretaste of the kind of approach that coroners will be directed to have by the Chief Coroner. The position of Chief Coroner will be very, very important because it appears on the drafting, as I read it, that it is the Chief Coroner who decides whether there is an inquiry. Therefore, coroners are subordinate to the Chief Coroner in a way that I think could be dangerous to our liberties at some stage in the future. While it may seem extremely remote at the moment, the question of whether a coroner\u2019s inquiry is held could be central to the satisfaction of people that there is not something untoward going on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThe Chief Coroner\u2019s function is described in clause 5(a) as being to oversee coroners\u2019 investigations. So it is not simply an organising and case allocation role; it looks as if there is a supervision function. It is not clear whether the Chief Coroner can terminate an inquiry and assign someone else\u2014in effect, take over if he or she wants. Clause 5(a) provides that the Chief Coroner facilitates the provision and coordination of support services and other services, but it does not give the Chief Coroner a budget, as I read it. That is held by the relevant department. This bill follows the modern drafting convention of not stipulating the department itself and the relevant Minister, that being left to the whim of the Prime Minister from time to time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIn a country that has such a long tradition of public integrity and lack of corruption in these matters, it is easy to say that fears might simply be paranoia. It is easy to say that, but in the last few years we have been going headlong into abandoning some of the institutional constraints and protections that we have had against it being worth our even considering corruption. We lost the Privy Council as our obvious independent umpire, and now we have our Chief Justice raising concerns about the subordination of her office and of the judicial office to the Ministry of Justice through its control of their budget, their communications, and their computer systems. Well, it seems that coroners are intended to be in every way as subject as the courts, and perhaps even more so. The Chief Coroner is to perform the functions of a head of bench. The Chief Coroner authorises coroners to open and conduct inquiries. I hope the select committee will look at that centralisation with a very suspicious eye indeed, particularly as it is allied to the absence of any apparent budget for the Chief Coroner. The Chief Coroner could be simply a toady for the department. It is not at all clear that there has been a sensitivity to the risk of that happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI also give notice that the select committee ought to look very closely at the sand being thrown into the gearbox by this bill in its exaggerated respect for so-called family. The definition of \u201Cimmediate family\u201D in clause 7 is: \u201C(a) \u2026 members of the dead person\u2019s family, wh\u0101nau, or other culturally recognised family group, who\u2014\u2026had \u2026 an interest in the person\u2019s welfare and best interests;\u201D. Well, who would not be able to satisfy that requirement? That could be an enormous group of people. Paragraph (b) of the definition then goes on to say that, to avoid doubt, it includes brothers, stepbrothers, stepsisters, step-parents or guardians, grandparents, and so forth. That definition of so-called \u201Cimmediate family\u201D will impose on coroners an obligation to try to identify what could be a very large group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThe bill then goes on and requires them, in essence, to seek objections to the carrying out of a post-mortem, and gives 2 days for those objections to be made. If the objectors then go to the High Court to pursue their objection, it could take at least another day and probably more. So we end up with a situation where before a post-mortem can be ordered the deceased person might have been dead many days. Is that safe? What objective is being satisfied by allowing that kind of delay, when post-mortems are really a protection against foul play? For example, with many poisons, with many causes of death, the post-mortem should be done immediately for it to be satisfactory. The longer the delay, the harder it is to identify exactly what the cause of death was, particularly with substances that decay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhen I look at these provisions I can see that the intent is to encourage more respect for, and less brusque treatment of, family concerns. But I think that in this country it is competent for a Government to say that irrespective of someone\u2019s superstitions, natural feelings towards the deceased, and unhappiness about interference with a body, the community for decades has had an interest in overriding those concerns, in order to make sure that everyone knows that a death is unlikely to be covered up for want of a post-mortem. Just introducing these provisions reduces that certainty. A potential wrongdoer might be able to bank on being able to delay\u2014or even avoid entirely\u2014a proper investigation into the cause of death.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ESo I want to know exactly what evidence the promoters of this bill have that post-mortems are a major cultural or spiritual problem; that these delays are not seen as problematic by the few pathologists that the country has managed to keep; and that the process of delay will not end up being overridden anyway, so that all we would have done is raise false hope in the minds of family members\u2014that their wishes will be overridden and a post-mortem ordered, anyway. In other words, this bill may be a solution looking for a problem that hardly exists, and it may create more of a problem than it deals with. The kind of political correctness that infuses this bill is a worry as to the quality of the thinking behind it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3c21a547d6345e489c9087aab40d6d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3c21a547d6345e489c9087aab40d6d5\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Coroners Bill replaces the Coroners Act of 1988, and seeks to reform the coronial system to increase the effectiveness of that system and to enhance public confidence in it. The Greens consider that to be a very welcome move indeed, because there has been enormous inconsistency in the past in the quality of work done by coroners. It may be that that is a legacy of the history of the coronial system. It started off as a very non-professional service and it has evolved over time in various ways. I think this bill indicates that this Parliament is finally giving some real respect and status to coroners, which is something that is most welcome.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EMost of the work done by coroners has been extremely good, valuable, and important, and we welcome that work. However, I think it is fair to say that in this country we have seen some coroners view their position as a platform for airing their personal views on political matters that are entirely unconnected to the case before them, outside their area of competence, and unsupported by evidence. They are matters that are entirely outside their area of expertise or their jurisdiction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIn particular, I think back to some of the comments made by Coroner Mate Frankovich in Auckland. He made a number of bizarre statements over time, and was never able to be effectively held to account for them. In May of 2000 he was investigating the death of Jamie Langridge of Whangarei following the taking of Ecstasy by that young man at a dance party. If I remember correctly, the death was related to his water intake as a result of loss of heat control due to taking Ecstasy. At the time, the coroner attacked what he called pro-cannabis politicians, and challenged them to attend inquests to better understand the damage caused by it. I am sure he was referring to people like myself and other Green MPs who have a strong policy and position on cannabis law reform. He thought that, somehow, our attending inquests of people who had died of Ecstasy might dissuade us from our opinion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIt was interesting at the time that Professor Sally Casswell of Auckland University, one of the most pre-eminent researchers in this area, said there was no evidence that cannabis had ever killed as Ecstasy has. That indicated that Mr Frankovich almost certainly had never presided over a cannabis-related death. She said that studies showed that most cannabis users did not go on to try Ecstasy, that she did not know of any deaths directly caused by cannabis, and that it was extremely unlikely that there had been any fatality directly related to its use. So cannabis use is a very different situation from the Ecstasy fatality that he was discussing in the Coroner\u2019s Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EReally, it is not the role of the coroner to use an inquest to vent personal views about unrelated policy matters. I consider that to be abuse of the coronial position, so I hope this bill will help to steer coroners away from that kind of abuse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224572403367d649b480c2b63a07820571\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what the bill has been about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221540da4acb249ac930d25a7a8545cb1\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think it is fair to say that coroners should stick to their job, which is to determine the cause and circumstances of death, and to make any recommendations about how such deaths could be avoided in the future. It is not the job of coroners to spout on about unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the case before them. I think it is entirely right that New Zealanders should expect that behaviour from coroners, just as we expect other professionals to deal with the matters before them, and not to use their position to make known their political views about other matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ESo the role of the coroner is to determine the cause and circumstances of death, and if appropriate, to make recommendations about how deaths might be avoided in similar circumstances. I think it is likely that our having coroners who are legally qualified and well trained will help to enhance that role, that having a Chief Coroner will help to enhance that role, and that having a complaints process will also help to enhance that role. Coroners will now be subject to the Judicial Complaints Commission, and I think that is right because coroners, as with any other quasi-judicial office, should be held to account and made to fulfil their function effectively, competently, and professionally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIt is especially important because the role of coroners is increasingly important in this country. Workplace risk is increasing in some professions, and it is important that we have people who are able effectively and competently to determine cause of death, and recommend ways of avoiding it in the future. If anything, one of my reservations would be to do with the enforceability of recommendations from a coroner. I have had meetings with a woman who came to see me in great distress because her husband had died in prison due to a lack of medical facilities in the prison. She told me that in the past coroners had made recommendations about essentially the same kinds of matters, and there was no indication that the Department of Corrections had picked up on those recommendations and actioned them. We need to make sure there is a process so that the recommendations of coroners are taken seriously and are actioned, particularly by Government departments when the investigations are of deaths in relation to functions of the State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThis bill has taken on a number of issues raised by the Law Commission in its 2000 report on ways to improve the system. We hope that they will improve the operations of the coroners themselves, and the processes by which they work. Much has been said about the new office of Chief Coroner, which will provide leadership, coordination, and consistency. We welcome that. There is a move to a small number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners. We think that is a good thing. It is important that, as I said, what is an increasingly important role is actually done professionally by people who are appropriately qualified. There is a specific regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples, and that is good. Inquiry and inquest processes are enhanced in a number of ways, including regulations about who can attend inquests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EA key thing, which has been mentioned by members already in the debate, is the relationship between families and coroners. It is not just a recent issue; it has actually been raised in the past a number of times by many different people in our community\u2014M\u0101ori in particular, perhaps, but other people as well. I was really amazed to hear Judith Collins say that she had never heard of any of those complaints\u2014that she had never heard any concerns raised about the way that coroners relate to families, and practices around bodies, and such. If that is true, I think it probably says more about the member than it does about the issue, because it is clear that a lot of concern has been raised about it over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI think some members are being a little bit uncharitable when it comes to this issue. When we look at the clauses in relation to family members\u2014those from clause 20 on\u2014we see that most of these things are fairly straightforward. They are about facilitating effective liaison with the immediate family. The coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives necessary to represent fairly the interests of all the different members of the immediate family, and that stands to reason. Families are not always united in their views, and the different views should be represented, but the coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives. That is all straightforward stuff. One would think it was fairly basic. I do not see why members object to it. Clause 21, \u201CCoroner must give family representative, immediate family, and certain others notice of significant matters\u201D, is fairly straightforward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ESome members referred to, for example, the right to object to a post-mortem, which Mr Franks talked about. Clause 31, \u201CRight in some cases to object to post-mortem\u201D, states: \u201C(1) This section applies to a post-mortem of a body that a coroner proposes to direct under section 29 be performed unless the coroner proposes to direct that the post-mortem be performed immediately \u2026 because \u2026 any delay would or may limit the pathologist\u2019s ability to determine the cause of death.\u201D Well, surely that is the crux of the matter. People can object, but if the coroner considers that any delay may limit the ability to determine the cause of death, then the post-mortem will go ahead. I do not quite understand what the member is objecting to in that case\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u002254012cf16e314405803afaa5dc5f3faf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254012cf16e314405803afaa5dc5f3faf\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E United Future welcomes the introduction and first reading of the Coroners Bill, and we will be supporting it to select committee. I must say that it is one of a number of pieces of legislation that have been hanging around for far too long, and I cannot help but reflect on the fact that if the Government spent less time on social engineering legislation, and more on substantive law reform, the country would be better off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIn terms of delay, I note that in November 2001, Phil Goff told the annual coroners conference that he hoped to have the new legislation in place by \u201Cnext year\u201D. Now, 3 years later, we are seeing it introduced, with a view to it being passed in about another 6 months. Coroners play an important role in our society, and the State\u2019s role in getting involved in the whole area of suspicious deaths is to ascertain, as far as possible, the cause of all deaths. However, it is limited to deaths where there has been some suspicion of foul play, homicide, or neglect, and the role of investigating and determining whether any of those were the case; and, secondly, looking at dangerous or negligent practices, with a view to trying to modify or eliminate the loss of human life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe State plays an important role in overseeing those issues, and it is quite appropriate that we have a rigorous, well-financed, and well-resourced Coroners Court so that we can keep on top of those issues. It is notable that it looks only at some deaths under section 4 of the Coroners Act. It is only where there is no known cause, an unnatural or violent act, suicides, where there has been some fault of medical procedure, and where deaths have occurred in prison or in a mental hospital. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThere has been extended criticism of the 1988 Act\u2014and the Law Commission, in its succession law project carried out in 1995 or 1996, noted the issues, and the particular issues of cultural sensitivity were raised. That prompted the commission to issue a discussion paper in 1999, where it identified and recorded a number of concerns in that area, which it listed as the procedures for the appointment, supervision, and removal of coroners; the failure of Government departments to act on coroners\u2019 recommendations; the lack of uniformity of coronial practice throughout New Zealand; the absence of a method for systematic appraisal of coroners\u2019 reports to ensure that patterns of sudden death, or factors predisposing to sudden death, are identified and accorded an appropriate response. There were a number of factors with regard to the conduct of the office\u2014in particular, the insensitive handling of the body and/or body parts by coroners and pathologists, despite provisions in the Coroners Act that required coroners to have regard to cultural values or spiritual beliefs; practices that failed to take account of, or which conflicted with, different cultural values, such as leaving the deceased unattended at a mortuary; the failure to inform the family when body parts were removed, or samples taken; the absence of a specific provision requiring the return of organs or limbs removed during a post-mortem examination; and the consequent failure in some cases to return a specific body part with the body, or to notify the family that a body part had not been returned; and the unnecessary delay in the return of a body and/or body parts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThere is an irony that the 1988 Act was passed in order to address concerns that the 1951 Act was culturally insensitive, particularly with regard to delays and the release of bodies. Clearly, parts at least of the reasons for passing the 1988 Act have been unsuccessful, and that reflects poorly on the drafting of the 1988 Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe report of the Law Commission, which was issued in August 2000, identified a number of concerns that it felt needed to be addressed. I am pleased to see that most of those have been picked up in the bill. The ones that the commission particularly identified were that coroners tended to be the poor relations of the judicial system and that had flow-on consequences, obviously with the self-esteem of coroners through to their perception in the public\u2019s eye. Coroners were paid pitifully and were often senior partners whose firms subsidised the State in allowing them to attend to coronial duties. Because of the variable quality of coroners the commission recommended that there should be legally qualified coroners and that the appointment process and criteria ought to be far more specific, and that there needed to be ongoing training of coroners. It also recommended a chief coroner who would oversee the process and provide some degree of consistency, and would have a duty to inquire into the implementation of recommendations that were made and endeavour to ensure that they were carried through, and that there ought to be more diversity of cultural recognition in the appointment of coroners, particularly M\u0101ori coroners. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIt also recommended that there should be a regionalisation of coronial districts and a reduction of the number of coroners and the appointment of full-time coroners, and that salaries ought to be fixed by the Higher Salaries Commission. In that regard I know that clause 100 provides for the Remuneration Authority to make that decision. I guess it will achieve the same ends, in terms of raising the standard of pay. The commission recommended that there be no change to the JP role, and that is something that has not been implemented in the legislation. Indeed, the role of JPs will expire. It recommended that there ought to be an annual report to Parliament. That again is something that is not in this bill. There should be greater involvement by family with regard to the retrieval of body parts and retention of body parts, and the retrieval of the body. There should be prior notification by coroners where there will be some adverse comments concerning the dead person, or indeed, persons who were living, so that there was some warning of that and opportunity to comment prior to it becoming public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe commission also recommended guidelines as to the publication of suicide details and a national database, so that there could be consistency. As I said, I am very pleased to see that most of those things have been picked up in this bill, and this does appear to be quite a thorough attempt to overhaul the whole coronial process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EHowever, there are a number of issues that I can see we will have to deal with in the select committee, and I am looking forward to that inquiry and the debate that we will have, albeit it being relatively dry law as far as the public is concerned. The first one is that whole area of the reporting of details of suicides. Clause 61 does provide a prohibition in terms of that reporting, and there has been quite a lot of debate in the media over the last few years as to the extent to which that should happen. Certainly, the media\u2014not surprisingly\u2014are against the whole idea of a restriction on the reporting. No doubt they will be making fairly weighty submissions to us to try to free that up. We will have to look at some sort of balance there once we have addressed both sides of the question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI note in 1999 the Government released a document Suicide and the Media as part of the New Zealand youth suicide prevention strategy. I was pleased to see that Canterbury University embarked on some research in March this year to look at how the media had picked up on that and adopted it. No doubt that will also come before the committee, and it will be interesting to see the extent to which there has been a voluntary picking up by the media of those suggestions. I note that England, Wales, and Australia do not have a ban on the reporting of suicides, and that may be of some influence to us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EOther areas include the specialisation of coroners, and particularly their relationship with the air accident investigation authority and other similar authorities that have specific jurisdiction in terms of deaths. I know that the latter are a little apprehensive about the idea that coroners will have an overarching jurisdiction that will cover their patch. However, at this stage my view is that we do need coroners to have the overall responsibility, and that is something we will have to work through. Coroner appointments of lawyers with 5 years\u2019 standing, instead of 7 years\u2019 standing, in my view sends at this stage the wrong signal that we undervalue coroners. I cannot see any reason why they should be any different from all other judicial appointments, because it appears to me that they are very similar to Family Court judges in the sensitivity that they have to apply. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EJust very briefly, the whole idea of JPs being excluded, and the need for an annual report from coroners, I think is important. I picked up Judith Collins\u2019 comment about full-time coroners and whether part-time coroners do provide advantage. There are a number of issues that we will need to deal with. Certainly, I look forward to the debate and the discussion we will have in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb7eb831bddd4b62b74326bddc258166\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb7eb831bddd4b62b74326bddc258166\u0022\u003EGEORGINA BEYER (Labour\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Coroners Bill. Coroners inquire into certain deaths to uphold human rights. Coroners seek to establish the cause and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths, and deaths in other special circumstances, such as where the person was in the care of the State. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with M\u0101ori for its review of succession law, and wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000. This bill draws on both the Law Commission\u2019s recommendations and the Government\u2019s review. I suggest that the House should support this through to a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u00226e2fb69915554badbc874972f6d7ab89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e2fb69915554badbc874972f6d7ab89\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, I am intrigued by United Future members. They stand in this House and say that this bill should have been given higher priority than some of the social engineering bills the Government has pushed through. Well, what are they doing about it? Why do they not use a bit of their clout and tell the Government that if it wants supply and confidence from United Future, it should at least put some of these bills higher on the Order Paper? What have those members signed up for? When they leave this House in the next few months, legislation on prostitution law reform, on civil unions, on a smoke-free environment\u2014which they all voted against\u2014and on gambling will have been passed. They voted for the Gambling Bill, but they did not attend the select committee or read one submission on it. As a result of that bill being passed, more and more people will be involved in gambling. That will be their testimony when they leave this House. When they leave, the Government will have got through everything United Future does not want. They will have sat there, waving their stake in the air. I cannot actually see United Future members from here, but I suppose they are there somewhere! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First will support this bill. I am personally pleased to support it, and I will tell the House why. My support centres principally on five clauses: clause 53, \u201CDecision whether to open and conduct inquiry\u201D; clause 54, \u201CDuties of coroner who decides not to open inquiry\u201D; clause 55, \u201CCoroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision\u201D\u2014and I hope that is retrospective and can go back a few years; I will explain why, in due course\u2014clause 108, \u201CCoroner may call for investigations or examinations or commission reports\u201D; and clause 109, \u201CCoroner may refer death to other investigating authorities\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI will illustrate my reason for wanting to speak about those clauses, with an example. This is a very serious example. It moves away from the bill, but I think it will illustrate my concerns very, very vividly. It was 29 December 1996, on a calm night on a flat sea that the Sydney Express left the harbour and ploughed into a fishing vessel, the Maria Luisa. Five men died. The police held an inquiry, the Marine Safety Authority of New Zealand held an inquiry, and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission held an inquiry\u2014all, in theory, independent. But the police told me\u2014and were straight upfront\u2014that they were heavily dependent on the Marine Safety Authority. They told me, to my face: \u201CConvince the Marine Safety Authority that we\u2019ve got it wrong, because the assertion of the family and the experts giving the family advice is that the findings of those inquiries were wrong.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThe local coroner delegated the responsibility to the deputy, and quite rightly so because of conflict of interest. The deputy coroner in this city of Wellington said no inquest would be held, because there had been several inquiries\u2014those of the Marine Safety Authority, the Transport Accident Investigation Commission, and the police. His adviser was a qualified master mariner who had been a harbour pilot in Auckland but for many, many years had been a senior executive\u2014indeed the president\u2014of the Merchant Service Guild, which is the officers union. That is the scene. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThat evening, personnel on the Sydney Express, the container vessel that left the port, saw the Maria Luisa in plenty of time\u2014some several minutes before the collision. We believe that for a number of reasons the Maria Luisa did not see the Sydney Express, not least because of the backdrop of lights when coming into the harbour. The Maria Luisa\u2019s radar was not working. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EOn board the Sydney Express was the captain, a fully qualified master mariner, and a third officer who was also a master mariner. They did not take a bearing of the Maria Luisa to see whether it was on a collusion course. They did not even plot its course on the radar. They did not even look at it on the radar. They did not even lift the binoculars out of their case to see what kind of ship they were approaching, and they did not use VHF or the beacon head. The Sydney Express hit the Maria Luisa, and five men died. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI have found out since that the investigations between the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority were not as independent as they should have been. We found out that the police admitted they did not hold an independent inquiry. We know that evidence given by the master and the third officer of the Sydney Express to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission was passed to the Marine Safety Authority months before the authority made a ruling. That smells like collusion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI can see that you are signalling me to get back to this bill, Mr Speaker, but I am suggesting to you that these clauses will capture what I am trying to outline. We found out that there was a flow-on of evidence from the commission to the authority, and the Ombudsman is at this moment in time\u2014and has been for some months\u2014trying to determine for me who passed that evidence. He has now told me he cannot determine that, or how or what the evidence was. I have asked for a look at it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThe clauses in this bill will, I hope, ensure that the family, or any family in future in a predicament like this, will get an inquest. I hope that clauses 108 and 109 will empower the coroner, if he or she says there will not be an inquest because of an inquiry, to determine for himself or herself that any inquiry was totally independent and above board, and\u2014when five men die\u2014that it was open to public scrutiny. By that I mean that the witnesses will be subjected to cross-examination from, in this case, the family. I hope these clauses will do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EIn my view, they are not strong enough to achieve that, and my one little hope is that the select committee will toughen them up. I know that my colleague on the committee will do his best in that endeavour. I hope that clause 55, \u201CCoroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision\u201D, will be retrospective. I hope at the very least that when this bill passes, a coroner in Wellington will listen to the concerns of the families and of the experts who have been helping them and determine that the matter should be inquired into. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EFive men died, and those families have not had closure. Five men died, and those families are still suffering. Members should think about how those families will be feeling on 29 December this year, and on that date in future years. If we cannot do anything else for the people of New Zealand when death occurs in these sorts of circumstances, we can at least ensure that they get justice, that they get listened to, and that we get to the bottom of the matter. In the issue I have raised, the ex - harbour master and one of the senior pilots in the port concerned have been advising the families, and they have advised me and the families that the inquiries held by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority got it wrong. That is not good enough, and I hope this bill will help us fix it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EBill read a first time, and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222acda55f31c440f89a6622c2a5e35ab5\u0022\u003EGambling Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022451f085912db47c69a3e64f5b6d49b2b\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u00225234d29229fc4a73bb6542a07be303e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225234d29229fc4a73bb6542a07be303e5\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I acknowledge the support of New Zealand First for the bill. New Zealand First did not approve of its content going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4); I acknowledge that, and I also acknowledge Dail Jones\u2019 support for it now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EThis short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow elected members of licensing trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act. Licensing trusts themselves are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However, some gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Some of those societies have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and the operation of gaming machines. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EThe Gambling Act, which came into force on 1 July 2004, prohibits this type of arrangement. It imposes a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the gaming-machine proceeds from those venues. This separation of functions is designed to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EThe potential for conflicts of interest is considerably lower in the case of licensing trust members. That is because they are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust. To reflect this, the bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members from the provisions that require the separation of functions. This will enable those members to be involved in gaming-machine societies\u2019 decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and the operation of gaming machines. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EThe amendment also extends to elected community trustees where a licensing trust has reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee and that the committee present its final report on or before 1 March 2005. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4d43833bafd4bc29cdb44a158b0471d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4d43833bafd4bc29cdb44a158b0471d\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (National\u2014Piako):\u003C/span\u003E This bill had its genesis some time ago when the Government tried to bring a provision into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that was outside the time frame. In previous debates on statutes amendment bills, I have stated that National would not support the inclusion of any late amendments that we had not had the chance to debate at a first reading and then examine at a select committee. So when the Government tried to introduce a provision to allow duly elected licensing trust members to be able to be involved in the distribution of gaming-machine profits\u2014which is a concept that National supports\u2014we were not prepared to support the Government trying to do so at the eleventh hour to rectify a problem that has been known for some time. In fact, the issue came up when we debated the Gambling Bill. The key persons provision and the associated persons provisions were all part of the debates then, and it was highlighted at that stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe Government has had plenty of time and opportunity to rectify that situation, but what did it do? It wanted to bring in those provisions by way of a late amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Of course, that has caused considerable problems for some members\u2014Labour members, in particular. I know that in the area that David Cunliffe and David Parker come from, where licensing trusts operate, people felt that they were disadvantaged because the provision had not gone through. As an afterthought, and with the pressure that has come on from licensing trusts, the bill is now before us. The provisions in it are provisions that National is happy to support, not just to get the Government out of a problem it has got itself into but, more important, because we believe that gaming-machine profits should be back out in the community where they are destined to do some good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EWhat we are finding now under the Government\u2019s regulations, especially those gazetted with the Department of Internal Affairs, is that the compliance costs now associated with the way gaming operators have to function\u2014the site rentals that are being paid by the trusts to those site operators\u2014are making it marginal as to whether it is worth their while being involved in having gaming machines on their premises. The return is not there, but the other compliance costs, such as harm minimisation and the other components of running machines, have put an extra burden on them. In fact, I have an internal Department of Internal Affairs memo, which I got under the Official Information Act, that states that there will be up to $100 million less in circulation to small to medium sized operators because of the regulations this Government has imposed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EWith that in mind, we also have the extra costs that will be imposed by electronic monitoring. Those costs will be straight off the bottom line. Harm-minimisation programmes will cause huge compliance costs in terms of the money that will have to be expended in that area. While National supports the idea that there needs to be preventive care and that we need to look after those who have associated problems\u2014we are not disputing that\u2014the actual costs associated with this sort of programme are over the top. I have heard that when the charter clubs of New Zealand implement their harm-minimisation programmes, at $118 per machine over 3 years, the cost for them will be about $1 million, which is money that should be going back into the community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EIt is interesting to note that in places like Australia, one can buy harm-minimisation programmes virtually off the shelf, for a very nominal amount. That could be adapted here to the venue policies, because what we are seeing is that a format to cover a number of venues is not acceptable and that harm-minimisation programmes will be based on venue to venue. Once again, it is not necessary and, in our view, it just shows how out of touch those involved in these programmes are. So we support this legislation, not to help the Government out of a bind but to make sure that the money that has been collected from the machines goes back into the community where it belongs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EI will put in perspective what the bill does. It will allow the licensing trust members, who are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act, to operate their businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. This is not an argument about whether we agree with licensing trusts; it is about what will happen with the proceeds from the gaming machines that are there. That is why we support the bill. Let me make that clear. This is not an argument that says we agree with licensing trusts; it is an argument that acknowledges that they are in existence and says that the money coming in from the machines should be going back out into the community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EMany charitable societies have allowed, and want to continue to allow, the elected licensing trust members\u2014who have been elected\u2014to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That was permitted under previous legislation. It was not an issue until 1 July this year\u2014it only came in on 1 July this year. Licensing trust members are publicly elected and publicly accountable to their communities. They cannot benefit personally from being members of the trust, and the risk of any conflict of interest is considerably lower. So with those points, we are happy that those licensing trust members are involved in the distribution. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of \u201Ckey person\u201D. That will enable them to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier, that was the position prior to 1 July this year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EI finish by asking what will be regarded, as we look at the Gambling Act, as significant influence in management and as significant interests. I think those are key points in the legislation that need to be considered. A person must be treated as having a significant influence if he or she is a director of the board of an organisation that is a holder of or applicant for a licence\u2014it could be the chief executive or a senior manager\u2014or if he or she owns shares directly or indirectly. Those people may have a significant influence, but the Act does not limit the ways in which one may increase one\u2019s personal influence\u2014that could be a person\u2019s influence as a director or a result of a decrease or increase in the number of directors or trustees who may be involved. The appointing of associated persons to more senior positions within that organisation could change the influence. It makes no difference whatsoever whether a person acquires a significant influence, or increases or changes the basis of that significant influence, as a result of the person\u2019s actions or the actions of one or more persons. I think that those are important factors in considering what interests are identified in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe other area relates to financial interest and to dealing with trustees of licensing trusts. Trustees do not have a financial interest in trusts, so are exempt from that, but they still have an influence through the relative power of their positions. They control a huge operation. In some cases licensing trusts are very big business. We believe that those people who have been appointed from the community have the desired expertise. They are accountable to their communities, and we should give them the credit to be able to distribute those funds that were available prior to 1 July this year. The Government made a mess of the Gambling Act. It is now trying to remedy it with this Gambling Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bd72adeae038432081802ca82d56f263\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u2019s Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229408daeb1cc344dcbc936d212f8ff3f4\u0022\u003EQuestions for Written Answer\u2014System Breakdown\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u00225343654354104e64aeb91af558d40147\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225343654354104e64aeb91af558d40147\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: A point of order was raised earlier concerning the lodging of written questions. I undertook to look into the matter and to bring information to members. A problem occurred yesterday in the offices of two members in the lodging of questions. That was caused by the importing of formatting that was not compatible with the questions for written answer system. The problem was successfully resolved yesterday and the members were able to lodge their questions. The questions for written answer system received all written questions lodged today, and those are now being processed. A message was sent this morning to the users of the questions for written answer system to inform them of the problem that occurred yesterday and to provide members with some information about how to avoid that problem in the future. Unfortunately, the message did not clearly identify that the problem actually occurred yesterday and has been resolved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d65d218c575c4fa5ae1fb54b94d085c7\u0022\u003EGambling Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227664ad0d5ec749ba994e040d143d8099\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000363\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022af9b97760ffc43ffa16a69342a20d895\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af9b97760ffc43ffa16a69342a20d895\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to rise in support of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022f33bccf5c0e542929074a769d1e5048c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f33bccf5c0e542929074a769d1e5048c\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the Minister, George Hawkins, for taking the trouble to refer to the discussions that took place with the Waitakere Licensing Trust, the Portage Licensing Trust, and myself from New Zealand First, and to clarify the misunderstanding that had arisen. The matter has also been touched on by the National Party spokesperson for this issue, Lindsay Tisch. New Zealand First will support the Gambling Amendment Bill going to the select committee. I think the bill is a very good move. I was contacted with a view to trying to assist in expediting things under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), but I note that that bill still languishes at No. 22 on the Order Paper. It is more than likely, the way the Order Paper is working at the moment, that this bill may come back to the House and be passed, at least simultaneously with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The move on the Minister\u2019s part is a very good one, and it should help to get this matter dealt with expeditiously. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs far as the principle is concerned, I want to see that the money gathered in the Waitakere Licensing Trust and Portage Licensing Trust areas is spent there. I was contacted by Edwin Perry, who takes a close interest in issues in the Wairarapa, where he is based, and he drew to my attention the problem that the Masterton Licensing Trust was experiencing. A person there had contacted Edwin Perry about what appeared to be a delay, but I think the Minister has clarified that issue now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae20c0528ced4dde95c12f57ce3144f6\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer\u003C/span\u003E: After hearing from me, it appears.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b28d9f46cb8a47f7a7f0de5a2c5c4889\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: One always takes credit for every little morsel, especially when one is a constituency member. I know that there is nothing like being a constituency member, having been one for 9 years. Anything that happens in the area has to have been achieved by the constituency member, even if he or she has only just heard about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bb55355299e423faee875670a1ce40d\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer\u003C/span\u003E: With great help from New Zealand First. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022006577ca1bea40f4a28f7bf4666bd054\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I take the point being raised by those constituency members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIn supporting the Gambling Amendment Bill, I do so very cautiously. I have my own history on the issue of gambling. Way back in, I think, about 1983, Sir Robert Muldoon was looking to introduce Lotto. Three members were put on a select committee: Robin Gray, myself, and Pat Hunt. Sir Robert Muldoon chose the committee extremely well, because there was a 2 to 1 vote against going ahead with Lotto. I was one of the two; I am a conservative on gambling issues. Subsequently, Lotto was brought in by the Labour Government. Then we had casinos, and the rest is history. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe money that is now being spent on gambling has created all sorts of problems, and I am concerned that in speaking on a gambling bill, the public should not get the impression from me that such bills are being passed without any regard whatsoever for what is happening out in the community. I note the little message we received from GamblingWatch, dated 14 December 2004, that referred to total gambling losses. It stated that although pokies have been legal in New Zealand for only 15 years, they now account for 51 percent of gambling losses. Casinos have been here for only 11 years and they account for a further 24 percent, most of which also goes on pokies. Gambling is a big problem in New Zealand. One would expect the licensing trusts to do more than anyone else to try to keep it under control. That is why New Zealand First will support this bill. The licensing trusts have duly elected members who are responsible to their community not only, I suggest, for the collection of the money and its distribution but also for the effect that that type of expenditure has on their community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIn the days when we were looking at this matter in 1980 and 1981, Sir Robert Muldoon was a great supporter of the New Zealand racing industry, and he wanted to make sure that it stayed alive and well. He was always concerned about the possibility that the spending of money in other areas of gambling would have a detrimental effect on the racing industry. New Zealand First, for perhaps much the same reason, is always concerned to ensure that the racing industry continues. I do not bet on the races. I perhaps take the occasional Melbourne Cup ticket. I do not even know the correct number of the horse I am betting on sometimes. But I now spend a little bit of money on Lotto, ironically. I always lose at the end of the day; I can see that. If we look at the expenditure on gambling, we see that in 1980, for example, there was a total expenditure of $118 million. Now, the expenditure on gambling in 2004 is $2.039 billion. That does not take into account the turnover on racing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc9b50f980594a2391d860fe5d6fcffb\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: In order to refresh people\u2019s memories, I say to members that the Gambling Amendment Bill, according to the explanatory note of the bill: \u201C\u2026 amends the principal Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts (who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust has reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989) from the definition of key person in section 4(1) of the principal Act in relation to a class 4 venue. This has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the principal Act that require the separation of functions and will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming machine proceeds.\u201D New Zealand First supports this bill, and as a member with interests in the west Auckland area\u2014I am concerned with the Waitakere Licensing Trust and the Portage Licensing Trust\u2014I am only too pleased to facilitate the passing of this bill. As I mentioned, there was a suggestion that this legislation should be contained in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), but I see that that bill is still down at the bottom of the Order Paper, in 22nd place. So I commend the Minister for bringing this bill into the House, because it is likely to be passed before the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is passed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI have one concern about the bill, which perhaps needs to be clarified. I understand that some licensing trusts are entitled to operate outside a licensing trust area. The concern that has been expressed is that that may extend the right of a licensing trust to be engaged in gambling activities outside its licensing trust area. That is a matter that I expect the select committee will be considering, as it affects this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EBefore the House rose for lunch, I also mentioned that a colossal amount is being spent on gambling now\u2014$2.039 billion, as opposed to $118 million in 1980\u2014which takes us to the issue of the effect of gambling on the community. I was pleased to see the press release by the Department of Internal Affairs on 14 December, which was Tuesday. Of course, today is still Tuesday as far as this House is concerned, because we are in urgency and are being forced to stay in this House, by virtue of a resolution supported by the Government and United Future, to proceed with bills that should have been dealt with last week. But the Prime Minister had to have her way last week, and we did something else instead of looking at these many measures. The press release that I have referred to is important, because it concerns the harm that is caused by gambling. The press release focuses on new rules for preventing and minimising the harm caused by gambling, and summarises some of the research on which those rules are based. Although New Zealand First supports this measure, it is concerned about how much is being spent on gambling, and it is concerned about what is being done to prevent the harm caused by gambling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOne aspect of gambling that few people are aware of is that about one in five New Zealanders who regularly gamble on gaming machines have a gambling problem. The rates overseas, apparently, are similar or even worse. In a newsletter, the director of the Gambling Research Centre at Auckland University of Technology, Professor Max Abbott, summarised the 1999 research that led to the review. The research showed that the risk of problem gambling is highest with gaming machines, and the risk is just as high whether the machines are in casinos, pubs, or clubs. So in supporting this legislation for the Waitakere Licensing Trust, the Portage Licensing Trust, and licensing trusts generally, I wish to remind trust members that as elected representatives of the people they have an obligation to run their trusts well. In the context of licensing trusts especially, and in considering their history of being started up and supported by the community for the community, we want to see them benefit their communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022 data-id=\u00228c2ef91f6b8c444082a1aca91880e23f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c2ef91f6b8c444082a1aca91880e23f\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to this first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill. ACT New Zealand will support this bill going to the select committee, but we are disappointed to see yet another bill being debated under urgency to rectify legislation that really has only just come into place. We spent a long time debating the Gambling Bill in 2003, when it was passed. It came into force on 1 July 2004 and now, just a few short months down the track, we are racing yet another amendment bill through Parliament just before the Christmas break. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EAs I said, ACT will support this measure going to the select committee in order to hear the arguments and public submissions, but we are very disappointed that, as several members of other parties have said, this legislation was first proposed to be part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The letter that came from the Minister of Internal Affairs was very brief and gave very little away as to the reasons this measure was to be put into place. For my part, I answered the letter on behalf of the ACT party by saying that presumably the Government did have reasons for a law change that it thought were sound but that the letter did not indicate what those were. So there we were, just meant to take in blind faith that the measure was the right thing to do. In my response to the Minister, I invited the officials to come and meet with me, and I asked for all papers on this matter that showed both the pros and cons as to why liquor and gambling should be mixed, as the Minister was proposing. I said I would be perfectly happy to revisit the measure if that evidence was put forward to us. I am not quite sure what has gone on here. Either the Minister is not very keen on the measure, or perhaps the officials are not, but nothing has been forthcoming. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EI must say that I was disturbed by the number of organisations, particularly licensing trusts in the community, that contacted my office and asked for an appointment. I met with some of their representatives, who told me that ACT was the only party opposing the statutes amendment measure, but here today, debating it in urgency, I find that other parties have exactly the same story to tell. They have been approached, told they were the only ones opposing the matter, and completely misled\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9c547a09cd84c678facbd26247a7be1\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: What other parties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbcf5740ec174ccea74f28ab19821e29\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: Apparently New Zealand First was told it was the only party opposing the matter. I had no idea that the National Party had also been told that, but a member made a very strong speech today saying it had. I understand that the Green Party was also told it was the only party not supporting it. Anyway, that is by the by. Things have turned out exactly as they should, but it is disappointing that we have this amendment bill so shortly after the core legislation has been passed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003ELike Mr Dail Jones, I too have several questions for the Minister. Mr Jones said that his questions were around the amount of money being spent on gambling. Mine are of a much more fundamental nature. I would like to hear from the Government just why it thinks that liquor provisions and gambling provisions should be mixed. It is not clear to me why that should be the case, although it would seem that in many cases the licensing trusts that operate in very small communities might well have the bulk of expertise in both areas, so perhaps there are good reasons for that. But those reasons certainly have not been put forward by the Government and promoted in any positive sort of way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EThe licensing trusts themselves are obviously very keen on this measure. It is important to look back on the history, slightly. Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act, and their role is to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts, as we have heard, are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act, and the Government is obviously admitting now that there was an oversight when that Act was passed. So this bill has been put forward to try to rectify that matter. It is important to remember that there may well be some conflict of interest with licensing trust members making decisions about the provision and distribution of funds from gaming machines. That is something that should quite rightly be discussed in some detail. It is good that this bill is now coming before the House and will be passed on to the select committee, where it will be debated in the right and proper way and where the public and those with interests in these areas will be able to put forward their submissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003ESo ACT New Zealand will support this measure going to the select committee. Beyond that we are making absolutely no commitment. We want to hear the arguments. I was hopeful that the officials for the Government might have been able to give us those arguments, and, as I said, we were certainly prepared to revisit the issue in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). However, I think that this course of action is probably the best one, and ACT will support this legislation going to the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022 data-id=\u002250a0b8c2f5fe468dabffe6b74a46af97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250a0b8c2f5fe468dabffe6b74a46af97\u0022\u003ESUE BRADFORD (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Gambling Amendment Bill aims to allow licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts to be involved in decisions about the operation of pokie machines and the distribution of profits. Although the Green Party fundamentally believes that overall we should drastically cut the number of pokie machines in our communities, we do have some sympathy for the anomalous position licensing trusts have found themselves in after the passage of the 2003 Gambling Act, which allows clubs and the TAB to run their own machines and manage the proceeds but not the licensing trusts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EAlthough the Green Party did not back the Gambling Bill as a whole and voted against it at the time, we did support those aspects of the legislation aimed at ending the power often held by pub management over the running of pokie machines and their control over consequent funding decisions. It was clear to many people in different parts of the country that some proprietors of non-casino gaming machines all too often allowed their own prejudices to determine who got what and who did not get anything at all. On top of that, allegations of trade-offs and contra deals were fairly common, from grants being conditional upon sports teams drinking on the premises or staying in certain motels, through to one or two criminal cases whereby major outright corruption in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars was the order of the day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EIn rightly legislating to bring this situation to an end, the passage of the Gambling Act also left behind a somewhat contradictory consequence. RSAs, workingmen\u2019s clubs, the TAB, and racing clubs could run pokie machines and use the proceeds pretty much as they chose for their own organisational purposes, but licensing trusts were put into the same category as all those societies, large and small, that have been specifically set up to manage pokie machines and distribute the profits, and in which key persons are not permitted to have any role in decisions about funding. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003ELicensing trust members have made a good case to Parliament that they deserve to be treated differently from organisations like the Scottwood Trust, the Lion Foundation, and all the other charity gaming associations whose management and boards are unelected, or certainly are not elected by any form of public ballot. Licensing trusts, on the other hand, are far more open entities whose board members are elected by the community every 3 years in elections conducted under the provisions of the Local Electoral Act. Those boards members are directly accountable to the people who vote them in and are thus in a significantly different position from gaming machine societies. The licensing trusts are also subject to a whole range of regulatory controls outside the purview of the Gambling Act, such as the Public Audit Act, and they are open to audit by the Auditor-General. Licensing trust accounts must be open to public inspection, and licensing trust members cannot benefit personally in any way from the activities of their outlets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EThere appear to be only five licensing trusts that operate pokie machines in their own venues. It seems fair that they should be treated equitably with clubs rather than with charity gaming bodies, as the public who vote for their boards would not continue to support them if they, for example, minimised gaming returns by using the funds to prop up a failing liquor outlet. The big worry the licensing trusts have had is that the new Gambling Act forces them to dismantle and replace the structures they have developed over a long period\u2014structures through which they say they do their best to be fair to all applicants for funding and to maximise the return to the local community. The Invercargill Licensing Trust, for example, tells us that in 2003-04 it returned 57 percent of gaming profits to local organisations, as opposed to most other returns around the country of under 40 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EThe bill we are considering for the first time today aims to allow licensing trust members and trustees to reinstate their involvement in decisions about funding from the proceeds of pokie machines on their premises. The Green Party believes that that is simply common sense, and we will support the bill. We hope it can be dealt with at the select committee reasonably expeditiously, for the sake of all involved. However, in saying that, I reiterate that our fundamental approach to the gambling industry remains unchanged. We would prefer to see a huge reduction in the number of pokie machines operating in New Zealand and a total revamp of the way the profits of those that remain are distributed. We would also like the many community organisations that now rely on the proceeds of human misery for their continued survival to consider other funding options, and the Government and other non-gambling funders to better resource the sector so that groups do not feel obliged to depend on the addictions and desperation of some of our poorest people for the pursuance of their good works. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EHowever, although we live in a country that not only allows a massive proliferation of gambling opportunities but actually endorses and promotes gambling in many forms, it is logical that there is equity in the way different proprietors are treated. The Green Party hopes that this bill will be moved reasonably quickly through the House once the Christmas break is over, so that the existing longstanding structures used by the licensing trusts will not have to be replaced and trust members can continue to distribute the maximum amount of funding back in their local areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EI also hope that I will still be around in Parliament when we pass legislation that will deal with the far more fundamental issues in the gambling sector, such as taking the steps needed to reduce the harm done to so many people in our country. Recent figures from the Department of Internal Affairs show that gamblers lost a record $2 billion last year, an increase of 9 percent on the year before. Roughly speaking, that is $5 million a day, much of it taken out of the homes of some of our lowest-income families. Eighty-seven percent of people who sought treatment from the Problem Gambling Foundation said that they have a problem with pokie machines. The figure for M\u0101ori women is up to 96 percent. The fact that the proceeds of pokie addictions are then used for the benefit of all sorts of worthy causes should not be an excuse for any values-based group to continue to endorse the industry, as seems to be happening if the many letters coming into MPs\u2019 offices at present are anything to go by. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EI look forward to the day when we have a Government with the courage to implement a truly responsible gambling bill, unlike the only partially responsible one that passed last year. Meanwhile, in the name of equity the Green Party will be supporting this minor amendment to what is actually a fatally flawed Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022 data-id=\u002236097b28d3a64195be747404bfd709ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236097b28d3a64195be747404bfd709ef\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future to make a short contribution to this debate. But before I get to the bill, I just make the observation that a few people have been talking about some of the detrimental effects of gambling. I do not think anybody in this Chamber could possibly put aside the detrimental effects of gambling, but this bill does not actually deal with that. It deals with a very specific aspect. The Gambling Amendment Bill exempts licensing trust members from being treated as a key person under the 2003 Gambling Act. It was an omission that should never have gone through, but it did. It was an oversight. The significance of this amendment bill is to allow licensing trust members to be involved, as they previously had been, in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. There should not be a conflict of interest, because licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community. In other words, they should not be able to benefit personally from the licensing trust, and I think the provisions in this bill prevent just that. The rest of the amendments are technical in nature, to give effect to the purposes I have just stated. United Future will be supporting this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00223805852fd49c42afa287a31803487cca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223805852fd49c42afa287a31803487cca\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E It appears the House is on its way to giving the support of all parties to this bill, at least as far as its referral to the select committee, and I would like to thank members all around the Chamber for that statement of support for this bill. If it is good enough for racing clubs and chartered clubs to be exempt from the venue persons rule under the Gambling Act on the basis of democratic elections, then it is, under this bill, equally desirable for licensing trusts to be exempt. I support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u002254f8e9de47b94aecbe879ed9709a8b0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254f8e9de47b94aecbe879ed9709a8b0e\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E In beginning my contribution on the Gambling Amendment Bill, can I just comment on the view of Heather Roy, who talked about the fact that she was told that ACT was the only party opposing this legislation\u2014as, it appears, New Zealand First was told it was the only party opposing the legislation, and I think she indicated that the Greens were told they were the only party opposing this legislation. I must tell the House that the National Party was also told it was the only party opposing this legislation. When I was told that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec41f1ef98374dac8e78c8dce2a70c9c\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: You ended up supporting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022feb0fee018b2413dae2cab0e25882344\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014in the beginning, about a month ago, I said I did not know where the spin was coming from, because we had not considered it. And I cannot imagine the ACT party wanting to support this privilege for licensing trusts. Whatever the shenanigans that have been managed out of the Minister\u2019s office, they have certainly antagonised the parties involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe Gambling Act itself has been the subject of some interest in the Bay of Plenty in recent weeks. As the local member of Parliament I have been approached by a number of people who are disappointed with the proposals that the Government has passed to change the way in which pokie funds, for example, are distributed. Last Friday I met with people from Otamarakau School, near Te Puke, which received a $45,000 grant from the Lion Foundation to put in a playground at their school. The school could never ever have afforded a playground, other than through that generous contribution from the Lion Foundation. Otamarakau School fears that the Government\u2019s plan to have grants centralised from a few Auckland-based authorities will mean that those schools at the end of the line miss out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b15e85c903404ee797e8bfb92fe4840f\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: What? The member is making it up again\u2014mincing in the House and making it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfcc04921c8b42b2bcb2a1368be834de\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister may say that, but I have to say it is only 3 days until we have a Minister of Education without a speech impediment. The Minister can say I am making it up, but he was not there on Friday when people from Otamarakau School came and talked to me about their concerns. I think it is a very important issue that those schools are concerned about their ability to provide services and facilities for their communities, because of the changes to these plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EA month ago I accompanied the next member of Parliament for the Otago electorate, Jackie Deans of Oamaru, into Oamaru. Amongst the appointments we had was a meeting with the Oamaru Licensing Trust. The trust explained to me its frustration as a result of the changes to the Gambling Act that prevented it from being involved in the distribution of local profits. The trust explained the reason. Because the trust is an elected authority, it has a level of democratic mandate. It is a community authority. From the applications made for the proceeds that the trust gathered from pokie machines, it had a clear knowledge of which organisations were double-dipping or triple-dipping, which organisations were legitimate, and which were not. The trust was able to bring that local knowledge to bear in its allocation decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI challenged the trust on one of the concerns that the Government expressed when it passed the Gambling Act. The Government said that those who had input into the decisions on where pokie profits went\u2014that is, publicans\u2014often had trade-offs and contra-deals whereby they might sponsor a sports group and expect it to buy beer, as it were, from its local establishment. I tackled the Oamaru Licensing Trust on that. The trust was clear that licensing trusts were much more considered in their sponsorship arrangements and the way that they got involved in the community, and that no such deals were ever contemplated by those organisations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EAs I travelled around Oamaru with Jackie Deans, the National Party candidate for Otago and the next member of Parliament\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286ed742001d54561ba7a10cf6ec3c217\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Who?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225116911e9d34cbfac941c9ebaaf71d3\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: Jackie Deans, from Oamaru. She is the former Deputy Mayor of Oamaru. More people in Oamaru have voted for her, in her political career, than have voted for David Parker. Jackie Deans, the National Party candidate for Otago, was able to demonstrate the important benefits to that community from the Oamaru Licensing Trust. I think she, together with the trust, made a convincing argument about why trusts should be entitled to maintain the right they currently have to approve those grants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI suppose it is testament to the lobbying power of the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Waitakere Licensing Trust that the Government would move so swiftly to introduce this legislation into the House, under urgency. I am not sure whether anyone else in New Zealand would consider it is the sort of legislation that requires Parliament to sit on a Friday afternoon, and maybe go into a Saturday afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae277fdb12744a13afc8ffdb61b31b7a\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s Tuesday afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a19ba01623a4532bc501fd39ec3e5a1\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: We are in the real world here. We are here on Friday afternoon, and possibly the sitting will flow into Saturday afternoon, if not Monday morning. I do not think this bill is relevant to an urgency motion, because there is no definitive date by which the bill has to be passed. It will just mosey its way through the select committee process. There is no great sense of urgency from the Government on it. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever from it being included in the urgency motion. I think it is equivalent to the amendment bill dealing with Tokelauan coins, which was one of the centrepieces of the urgency motion during the \u201Cmother of all Budgets\u201D in 1991.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EA number of members have given contributions on why people should be prevented from gambling, and on why people should be denied the right to play a pokie machine. I think this House often loses sight of the fact that adults should be able to make those sorts of choices in their own lives. They should be allowed to decide whether they want to gamble their money. They should be free to choose how they spend their discretionary income. This fact of poor people spending a lot of their income on gambling is nothing new. In years gone by people would rail about the amount of money spent at housie halls in Christchurch. They would rail about people who went to the trots or to the races and spent their pay packets on the horses. They would rail against people who spent their money on, for example, Golden Kiwi. There have always been gambling choices for New Zealanders. It is a good part of entertainment, and New Zealanders should be able to expect to continue to have those choices. If Green Party members, for example, are worried about low-income people spending their money on gambling, then I have to tell them that if they close off one opportunity, people will exercise their freedom of choice to gamble somewhere else. Really, what Parliament should be doing is regulating in the way that we are doing currently, without being extensive and denying people\u2019s rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Gambling Amendment Bill. I know that Jackie Deans, who I am sure is out knocking on doors in Oamaru and Alexandra today, will be pleased to know that we support the progress of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022283015b096e342cfa295c32d9540ea59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022283015b096e342cfa295c32d9540ea59\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 with regard to my speech impediment. In 1969, as a schoolchild, I suffered a relatively serious accident that resulted in four teeth and a large part of my upper jaw and nose being removed. As a result, I have a speech impediment. It is something I do not mind at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022db6e703a126a4b44a7a60ce9bf79170b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db6e703a126a4b44a7a60ce9bf79170b\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E I support the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill, and its referral to the Government Administration Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022664360ad6db74fa0a184e7ed59e3fdee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022664360ad6db74fa0a184e7ed59e3fdee\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to make a few comments on this bill, because I have some views about the way in which the administration of pokie-machine funding in particular is being handled in this country. I want to state at the beginning that the National Party supports this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. However, I have some personal reservations about the bill\u2014not because of the way in which licensing trusts operate, or because of the fact that licensing trust trustees who are also part of the trusts that distribute the funds will be excluded from the \u201Ckey person\u201D provision of the central legislation, but rather because the sensible approach that is being taken with this amendment should, in my view, apply to every organisation around the country that is set up to distribute the funds, where trustees are also the owners of the premises in which the gambling machines are located. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that the Parliament is being asked to give some sort of preferential arrangement to people who sit on licensing trusts, yet those same arrangements are not available to individual publicans, bar owners, or cafe owners who pay the money from the machines into trusts for distribution. One of the worst aspects of this is that by allowing trustees of distributing bodies to become\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa4cd60914bb4cc2880d7b7fb7df9639\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: Who funded the National campaign?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5334b025aee4ef3b431610b538409e7\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but am I going to be subject to this terrible assault from the Green Party?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e7bfee5-ac9c-4ae2-b85d-7d3b7a785561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266d6c1089a054db99584984d1f5475ea\u0022\u003ERod Donald\u003C/span\u003E: We want to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f058bcfd4584b03ab3535bd69e263bf\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9881c00807c4b38a56d820f4d46aec7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The point of order is coming out of the member\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208c7041fbb224dc39147217c12836405\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: No, the point of order cannot come out of my time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a08dd7e8f5a04a689585f4eb32500c2e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. I ask the member to carry on. I know what the point of order is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b2a530ce3ab45eaa5c45f5c3f66ec87\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I wish to make a personal explanation about the allegation made by the Green Party member that I received funding. To save the Green Party member from continually interjecting along those lines, I make it clear that it is a matter of public record that in 1996 my election campaign did receive a modest donation from a trust that derived its funds from pokie machines. Might I also say that a number of other parties in this House received considerably larger donations from the same source than the National Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI want to refer to a perfect example of the stupidity that is being exercised by bureaucrats in the Department of Internal Affairs. What is wrong with trusts distributing money to the community for community purposes? Why do the Green Party, the Labour Party, and a number of other parties in this House, which seem to get upset by the fact that sometimes political parties have received money from that source, seek to remove the political process from the community? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThis is exactly the sort of issue we were talking about last night in respect of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill\u2014a desire to see that only central government can have a say in these matters and that no community, effectively, can be influential in choosing to put funds into a political campaign in order that its best interests may be represented. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with that. However, what we have in this bill is a situation where someone is elected to a licensing trust, and he or she becomes part of the management of a number of hotels that come under the auspices of that trust. Then that same person is elected to the body that receives the funds from the trust\u2019s hotels, bars, cafes, or pokie machines for distribution to the community. If that were a privately owned outfit, that person could not be one and the same. However, this bill will allow that exact provision, on the basis that the person does not personally benefit. I think it is a very thin argument to run. A person in that position could advance funds to a particular sports club that he or she was involved with, to a school that his or her children attended, or to a travelling sports team that perhaps he or she was a part of. Seemingly, there would be no problem with that, because the person was elected by the community at large to administer the trust in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThat argument could be extended to say that someone who has licensed premises holds that licence by virtue of the community allowing him or her to hold it. The community has effectively, through the licensing laws, said that the person is a satisfactory individual to run the particular activity. What is wrong with extending that argument to say that the same person can be involved in the distribution of funds from pokie machines in the wider community, not just that person\u2019s own community, but to organisations in the community? I say to Mr Donald, and to those members of the Labour Party who find that idea somehow offensive, that if it were not for this sort of distribution, many sports in this country would not survive in the way they do today. I do not think that many of our children would have the sporting opportunities they have today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIt bothers me a great deal that the Department of Internal Affairs has decided there is so much amiss in the system that it has to be involved to an extent that will chew up considerable amounts of money\u2014money that might otherwise go to good purposes\u2014for the administration of its own bureaucracy. Let us be clear about how this will work. The Department of Internal Affairs now not only is able to monitor electronically but is able to employ people to inspect these premises to make sure the machines are working. I would have thought that the best way to know whether something was amiss was to watch the electronic monitor, and then monitor the flow of cash that comes from them. One does not have to be some sort of in-the-field inspector to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe National Party wants to see this bill progress to the Government Administration Committee, but I want to say that a number of us are disappointed that the definition of \u201Ckey person\u201D is not being extended to allow many other operators in the business to also sit on the trusts that are part of the distribution of the funds. We can see that the bureaucracy that is growing up around the funds is starting to soak up far too many of the dollars that ordinarily should go to community purposes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022 data-id=\u0022492dd1a0e9cc47beac0814e02578fe4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022492dd1a0e9cc47beac0814e02578fe4c\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support this bill, which has been put forward by my very good friend George Hawkins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u002278b28ff331964c56815465a061b07784\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278b28ff331964c56815465a061b07784\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Government Administration Committee consider the Gambling Amendment Bill and that the committee report the bill to the House on or before 1 March 2005.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002207985b4def894e8884dedf7a63489531\u0022\u003EFiordland Marine Management Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224d566a5c7a5946e7935936af81b8b63e\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u00229401d209171c47df914130afc848fad4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229401d209171c47df914130afc848fad4\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe bill has its genesis in Fiordland amongst people who live, work, and play there; people who care deeply about the health and well-being of the area\u2019s marine environment. Rather than complaining about outside interference or outside rule-setting for Fiordland\u2019s marine environment, these people decided to pull together all stakeholders\u2014fishermen, iwi, scientists, tourist operators, and environmentalists\u2014and develop some proposals to better manage and protect the area. These people are the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment, and members may have read their story in North and South. Their proposals for the management of Fiordland are contained in the Fiordland Marine Conservation strategy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThis bill is testament to the guardians\u2019 vision, tenacity, and commitment to the sustainable management and protection of Fiordland\u2019s unique marine environment. What is perhaps most remarkable is that they have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals, many of which this bill gives effect to. For example, the bill creates eight marine reserves in Fiordland totalling nearly 10,000 hectares. That the guardians secured the support of recreational and commercial fishers and iwi for this is a remarkable achievement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe preamble to the bill sets out the history of the guardians and the development of their marine conservation strategy for Fiordland. Central to this history is their vision that: \u201Cthe quality of Fiordland\u2019s marine environment and fisheries, including the wider fisheries experience, be maintained or improved for future generations to use and enjoy.\u201D This vision is reflected in the purpose clause of the bill. In recognition of the importance of Fiordland\u2019s unique marine environment and the outstanding landscape and cultural heritage, clause 3 notes that the bill implements a range of measures to assist in the preservation, protection, and sustainable management of Fiordland\u2019s marine environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EAll the provisions in the bill apply to the Fiordland marine area. This area is established by clause 6. The map included in the bill as schedule 1, and described in detail in schedule 2, indicates the boundaries of the area generally. As already noted, a key aspect of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves. Clause 7 establishes the reserves. Each reserve is described in a schedule that also specifies any special conditions that apply. For example, anchoring is prohibited within particularly fragile areas within marine reserves, and in parts of others the storage of rock lobster pots is explicitly permitted. Allowing the storage of pots was crucial to gaining the support of rock lobster fishers for the creation of the reserves, and I am certain that it will not have a detrimental effect upon the area. In fact, they have lovely names for these reserves, they call them \u201Cchina shops\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe general conditions that apply to all reserves are set out in schedule 3. The bill places a moratorium on the creation of any further marine reserves in Fiordland for 7 years, or until a review of the management of the Fiordland Marine Area is completed, if that occurs earlier. Under clause 21, the review is to be initiated by the Minister for the Environment within 5 years of the commencement of the Act. Clause 10 amends the Southland regional coastal plan to give effect to management measures proposed in the guardians\u2019 strategy, relating to such things as anchoring, diving, biosecurity, and the erection of structures in the Fiordland Marine Area. The Government is confident that the consultation, which has been ongoing for 5 years\u2014that is why the speed now\u2014undertaken by the guardians with the public on these changes justifies making them without following the normal Resource Management Act process for plan changes. The changes have been included in the bill with the agreement of the Southland Regional Council. The detail of the changes is set out in schedule 12. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EAnother key change to the management of the Fiordland marine area is the creation of Fiordland Marine Guardians. This body will consist of between five and eight members appointed by the Minister for the Environment, one of whom is to be nominated by Ng\u0101i Tahu. Under clause 22, central government agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland Marine Area, and the Southland Regional Council, must have regard to any advice or recommendations of the committee. Clause 17 provides for the Minister for the Environment to pay the members of the committee for any work they undertake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe provisions of the bill, along with several non-statutory initiatives this Government is progressing, give effect to the main aspects of the Fiordland marine conservation strategy. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their years of hard work in developing these proposals and seeing them through to this stage\u2014a very impressive achievement that will ultimately benefit Fiordland\u2019s marine environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EOf all the legislation I have ever worked on in this House, I have enormous pride in this bill in particular, because of the manner in which it has been developed. It was developed by the people, who came to the Government for some financial support and some help to develop the strategy. We helped them with that money, and this legislation has been generated from their work upwards\u2014this is real people power. It is my commitment to those people that I will try to get the bill through this stage this year, and finally right through by September next year. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002229200c70f8754ef99b652cdaededfcf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229200c70f8754ef99b652cdaededfcf2\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E The National Party strongly commends the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment for the huge amount of work they have done over many years, going back to the period when National was in Government, in bringing together the ideas that make up this bill, to provide for an effective management regime for the very special and spectacular area of New Zealand known for so long as Fiordland. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe National Party welcomes the fact that different groups coming from a wide range of interests\u2014tourism interests, commercial fishing interests, and recreational fishermen, as well as environmentalists and people from a number of industries\u2014have come together and said: \u201CWe think we can work it out better ourselves.\u201D, and have come up with some quite exciting proposals for Fiordland. But I say to the House that this bill very much illustrates what is wrong with the whole legislative framework for the way in which we deal with the foreshore and ocean environment. This legislation shows that the only way we can bring together community groups to develop a comprehensive plan for an area of oceans is to do it by way of special legislation. I think the real challenge with this legislation is to use it as a model for the far wider reform that is required of the Resource Management Act, the Marine Reserves Act, our fisheries legislation, and the Foreshore and Seabed Act, because that package of law is an awful, piecemeal mess that requires substantive change and reform. I must note my disappointment that the oceans policy work initiated by Simon Upton, a former environment Minister, and myself back in 1999 has completely lost its way. If the Government had done that work properly, we would not now be requiring special legislation to do what is sensible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is noteworthy that the volunteers of the Fiordland guardians, with this bill, propose eight new marine reserves in the area of Fiordland. That is more marine reserves than the Government has been able to achieve over the last 5 years. The Government, despite being critical of National\u2019s record of creating 15 reserves during the 1990s, has created a mere three in 5 years. Its ideological legislative approach to marine reserves, its unique capacity to peeve off recreationalists, means that it has made very, very little progress at all. It could learn some lessons from the way in which the pragmatic Southland and Fiordland communities have put this bill together. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also want to highlight the nonsense of the Government\u2019s goal of having 10 percent of the marine environment in what it calls marine protected areas. Interestingly, at the select committee last week we asked what \u201Cmarine protected areas\u201D meant, and the honest truth was that the Government had absolutely no idea. I think it means marine reserves\u2014because of course there is no such legal phrase as \u201Cmarine protected areas\u201D in any of our statutes. It is noteworthy that Labour\u2019s strategy is to provide for 10 percent of New Zealand\u2019s coast to be in marine reserves, yet even with the very comprehensive approach that has been applied to Fiordland, it has not been able to get 1 percent\u2014and this would have to be one of the remotest areas of New Zealand. The Government does not have a bolter\u2019s show of ever achieving the goal of 10 percent\u2014nor should it, because that is a dumb, silly approach. The approach that is required is that taken by the Fiordland guardians. They have said that they want a representative sample of the different areas of coastline set aside in marine reserves. National supports that approach, not the Government\u2019s arbitrary percentage goal that is not backed up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also need to point out that it is somewhat ironic that Labour has taken the view that marine reserves shall be absolute no-take zones. These are areas that are to be absolutely protected. There shall be no mining in marine reserves. Scientists shall not be allowed to take any samples in marine reserves. Recreationalists shall not be allowed to take any fish in marine reserves. But this bill says that if one is M\u0101ori, one can still take greenstone. What sort of PC sop is that? Remember, this is only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area. Are we really depriving Ng\u0101i Tahu of their treaty rights with respect to pounamu by saying that they cannot take pounamu, or greenstone, from these eight little marine reserves in Fiordland? Why do we take this absolutist view? Nobody shall take any\u2014except a bit of greenstone for Ng\u0101i Tahu. That, again, shows the Government\u2019s sickly liberal approach, whereby it will\u2014[Interruption] I say to the Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fffe53034b3b446fae0a130fe807496a\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: You are belittling the guardians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238717720775f45d68f10fe45a3e76c95\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, I ask the Minister just to take a deep breath for a moment. Under the Marine Reserves Act, the Government has said that no exceptions whatsoever will be made to no-take zones in marine reserves. In the Marine Reserves Bill that the Minister has introduced into the Parliament she has reinforced the policy that there is to be absolutely no removal of any minerals, or of any natural element, from a marine reserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat the Minister has done\u2014[Interruption] Could the Minister for the Environment just calm herself. I know we are under urgency. I know it is a long week and I know you are likely to get fired on Monday\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022849fcb2682fa4e9fbe4b1f749546db6b\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not likely to get fired. Please do not bring me into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022300d3aedcde14efb8aaebe511eb85235\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: We all know on this side of the House that the Prime Minister is likely to sack the Minister for the Environment. She has been sacked from every other job she has had, so she should be sacked from this job as well. I simply say that from this side of the House it seems extraordinary that under the Marine Reserves Bill there is a process that communities are required to go through in order to create a marine reserve. It is a bureaucratic, slow process. The Government has had a Marine Reserves Bill around for 2\u00BD years that it has not processed, and which is stalled in the select committee because the Government cannot get its ideas clear. Now we have to have special piecemeal legislation to advance those ideas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill contains very sound ideas that have been developed by the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment but it really exposes the failure of the Government to develop any sort of comprehensive policy in respect of the marine environment. They have fudged and stalled\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa7016d4715d46fab4df93363391e055\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I think your mother is in the gallery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c16c68d1ce6a456a8e17a998337c2813\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I assure the member that she is not, but I thank the person for his or her support, regardless. It shows a complete failure of the Government\u2019s approach\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b04792a99c94e25aa5acb0246eefe39\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Doesn\u2019t look like it. He\u2019s been with Nick so it\u2019s probably not his mother.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de3886cd6af945389d0f615f73853f6d\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4ddc09c2a2747c8a088015f0498587f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Will you allow that to be said, Mr Speaker?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1fd9d4b374145cc8a98fb92d642aabc\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I advise those in the gallery that the debate takes place inside the Chamber. There will be no comment, whatsoever, from outside the Chamber or else the person will be removed from the precincts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022939738ea1eae4676b5ccffb483ce0c0a\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, on reflection, that the Minister of Education will form the view that his comments were inappropriate and that an apology is due to Dr Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229aedfdee6a3247d0b3692ae278609820\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fc7255263834086aafdb6a9b4755577\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I conclude by saying that this is good for Fiordland. What we need, though, is a legislative framework that allows communities all over New Zealand to take this sort of approach so that different groups are able to come together and come up with the marine reserves and resource management plans that will see the marine environment managed in a local, community way that delivers for tourism interests, recreational interests, and those who want to see properly protected marine areas in marine reserves. Again, I commend the Fiordland guardians for their work. I congratulate Bill English, the local member, who has put a lot of energy into trying to make this happen. I look forward to the bill progressing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022 data-id=\u0022358e26b8213e43b1a095e7a1b45bac7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022358e26b8213e43b1a095e7a1b45bac7e\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support this bill, which has excellent measures to preserve, protect, and manage the area in Fiordland. I am delighted that this bill has been put forward by a very good friend of mine, Marian Hobbs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u00228a2d23af9185489c8df612453c037d82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a2d23af9185489c8df612453c037d82\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Who would come to the House, having read through the Fiordland Marine Management Bill and accompanying documents, and not commend the bill? New Zealand First does just that. A locally based incorporated society has worked since 1995 to develop, in consultation with the widespread community and with all the stakeholders involved, a plan that has finally culminated in this bill. The motives are there, particularly with regard to the integrated management of the area and the special features that make that area quite unique. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EBut having said that, one wonders why we have a piecemeal intervention into the whole marine reserves process. Some of us were involved with the Oceans Policy and worked through it many months ago. So where is that overarching, all-embracing policy? Why is it not here to set out the indicators and determinants of where our total marine shelf, marine life, and coast should be with regard to their future and preservation? That is not here. We also have a Marine Reserves Bill, on which submissions were heard many, many months ago. There is no indication whatsoever that the present Government wishes to advance that bill. Yet at the same time the Department of Conservation is endeavouring to promulgate marine reserves elsewhere, against local opinion. I refer particularly to Mimiwhangata, Great Barrier Island, and, more important to those in the far north, the projected Three Kings Islands reserve. Those are all examples of the use of haphazard systems to develop marine reserves, and they are all in various stages of uncertainty because of local reaction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EI will now draw the House\u2019s attention to some issues that, in perusing this bill, I find rather interesting. The first one is why the local authority, Environment Southland, is not the determining body for this bill. There may be very cogent reasons for that not being the case, but one has to ask whether it is part of the Government\u2019s policy. Yesterday we heard in the debate on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill of interventions upon local authorities. We know that there probably had to be interventions with regard to Environment Canterbury. Is this yet another intervention upon the regional coastal policy, which was created only in March 2004, and which\u2014as far as I am able to see\u2014is a very, very sound proposed coastal plan? One would expect the local authorities to have a major role. I do not see that, at all, in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESecondly, when I look at the proposed regional coastal plan for Southland, and at the various delineated boundaries and areas in the plan, I see some strange omissions. One wonders, and I hope that submitters will bring this issue to the Fisheries and other Sea-Related Legislation Committee, whether there are cogent reasons as to why there is a fenced-off area. When I look at the coastal plan and see the delineation from Awarua Point southwards along that coast, I wonder why a significant part of that area is not part of the plan. The coastal plan states that the values of the coastal marine area are very diverse and include ecosystems, habitats, natural character, amenity, open space, landscape, biodiversity, and historical, spiritual, or conservation values. It states that those values are the heritage of future generations. One wonders, therefore, having seen that statement in the outline of the coastal plan, why those values are not extended to a much greater area of the coastline, particularly as when one goes through the attributes of those sections of the Southland coastline\u2014and, by the way, it is a very significant one, of almost 3,000 kilometres\u2014one finds there are other areas to the south that should be part of the plan. So I suggest to the Minister and to submitters that attention be given to why the fenced-off area is considered to be significant by the guardians, and not a much larger area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe third major point I want to bring to the House is that behind this bill was a \u201Cgift and gain\u201D concept. The gift and gain concerns commercial and recreational fishing\u2014where the gift is through a reduced take\u2014and tourism operators. I would like to be reassured that this bill will go out to each and every one of those stakeholders, in order to make very certain that they really feel that the final version of the legislation represents a gift and a gain\u2014that what they have given away will be a substantial gain to them and to the environment long term. In that regard, I particularly notice in the coastal plan that special importance is given to the sheltered anchorage areas of Southland\u2019s coastline. The single most important safety feature available to fishermen in Fiordland, it states, are the few sheltered bays and anchorages. I would like to believe that every one of those areas has been preserved in this plan. Not only are they of value to commercial and recreational fishers, but also they are of value to cruising yachts, to pleasure boats, and to tourist launches. In fact they are of the same value today as they were to Captain James Cook so many, many years ago. Although one would hope that those special features of the coastline are preserved in this plan, on looking at the anchorages that are listed I am not altogether certain that they are all included. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ELast of all, I want to draw the House\u2019s attention to the issue of why this bill is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill has mixed features. It is a bill that concerns the Department of Conservation and also concerns the Ministry of Fisheries. There is a Marine Reserves Bill before the House that wishes to exclude fisheries totally from the oversight of that bill. Yet this marine reserves bill, which is intended to incorporate into the national system probably the largest marine area, in terms of size and capacity, that has ever been incorporated into it, is to be looked at by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. I am not saying that that is the wrong way to consider matters with regard to the sea, but it does send a mixed message as to what the Government really intends. I hope some submitters on the bill will come back to that matter, particularly because, when I look at the Southland Regional Coastal Plan, I see one major submitter. One would not have to hazard a guess as to who that submitter is\u2014it is the Department of Conservation, which has attitudes with regard to coastal management that are sometimes rather perverse and rather strange, but that cause ratepayers many, many thousands of dollars in resolving the department\u2019s local reference orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe last thing that this bill may do is that if the Minister accepts\u2014and the ministry does accept, I hope\u2014that the fenced-in area is too small, then the same studious attention would be given to the wider area of Southland\u2019s coast, and particularly to the area to the south. That would mean that there is a truly integrated approach, not just in the area set out by the proposed framework of the guardians but for the wider area of Southland. I am quite sure that the local authorities down there would be very pleased to be party to such an approach, because the cost of preserving that environment long term would be shared\u2014as it ought to be. I do hope the Minister keeps that point very much in mind, because it seems to me that the fenced-off area is too small. The reasons for preservation are relevant to a much wider coastal framework than that\u2014and they should be, if this bill is to progress further with the widespread blessing of the wider community. Increasing the size of the area would be of far greater benefit than the currently proposed area, and would preserve the essential core values that the regional coastal plan states should be the core values for the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1376a212df54915a270c8d90959dbec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1376a212df54915a270c8d90959dbec\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E This morning I spent a considerable period of time on the telephone, talking to a number of people in the Te \u0100nau district. Rather unusually for a politician, I suppose in some respects, I asked people what they really think about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. Those people are involved on the ground floor. But, first of all, I would like to thank Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson, and to recognise the job they have done. I think it is important to give credit where it is due, so I thank Marian Hobbs, the Minister for the Environment, and Pete Hodgson for their efforts and the fact that they understood what the locals were trying to do. I quote from a comment made by Pete Hodgson, who was Minister at the time, in North and South magazine. He said: \u201CWhat the locals have gone and done is what central government and organisations like Forest and Bird have failed to do. The lesson for all of us, in the technocratic and bureaucratic age, is that it\u2019s entirely possible as a community to get it done.\u201D That is absolutely correct. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI will also quote again from the same article, which I think is very good. It was written by Peta Carey\u2014I assume that is a lady\u2014who goes on to quote John Steffens. She states: \u201CAs much as the Guardians of Fiordland claim to have consulted all interest groups in Fiordland, there was one voice expressly excluded in the first few years of discussions, that of Forest and Bird. John Steffens admits they were simply not invited. \u2018Personally I felt that from the behaviour I\u2019ve noticed in other groups I\u2019d been involved with, that if Forest and Bird had sat around the table with the Guardians they would have tipped the group over. People would have given up in disgust and walked away.\u2019 \u201D That is the group that controls the Minister of Conservation, and I commend again Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson for their foresight and common sense. The comment was also made to me this morning that the Minister of Conservation has not even replied to those people. I think that is quite outrageous. So I am delighted, especially at this time of the year, to offer that little bouquet to those two Ministers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EHowever, on listening to those people this morning\u2014and I do listen to them\u2014I did hear them express some very, very real concerns. I asked them whether it was possible that the whole process could be open to capture, and one gentleman said to me that that was absolutely right, and there was a concern that they had created a monster. As long as the process is controlled by the local people, that will not happen, but the concern is that, through a political process, Marian Hobbs may not be the Minister forever. Well, it may last a few days\u2014who knows? But never mind. Those people are concerned that Ministers who understand the process may be taken away in the future\u2014whether it is next week, next month, next year, or whenever it is. That is their very real concern. The bill allows for the Minister to appoint the guardians, and that would be wrong in every sense. The appointments should come from the local people, with perhaps one or two being appointed by the Minister to give some sort of outside perspective. But we cannot allow ministerial appointments to dominate the guardians in the future. As I say, we open ourselves up for total capture of the absolutely excellent job that people like John Steffens and other members of the guardians have done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EI must say that one thing that really concerned me was the appointment of Professor Alan Mark to the guardians. Professor Mark is well known to me and to the high-country community, because he has alienated virtually every farmer in the high country over his top-down approach to the whole process. Quite frankly, Alan Mark is a bad appointment to have made to that group. I concur totally that in order for these sorts of organisations to succeed, there has to be a bottom-up approach, which is exactly what we have in the guardians group at this time. But we cannot have people like retired emeritus Professor Alan Mark believe that people from Dunedin or Wellington are the appropriate people to have as the guardians of this most remarkable area of our country. Professor Mark stated in North and South magazine that he was \u201Cmarginally acceptable to Forest and Bird\u201D. Well, the only thing I can say to that is \u201CYeah, right\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003EProfessor Mark is well known as New Zealand\u2019s foremost preservationist. I make the distinction between conservation and preservation, because this bill should be about conservation, not preservation. Conservation would be welcomed, I am sure, by everybody in this House, including me and members of the ACT party. Irrespective of who it is, conservation is what we are about\u2014perpetuation of the species, if one likes. Preservation, especially in remote areas, is all about creating a haven for poachers. If Government members and other members have not worked that out yet, they should come and talk to me, and I will point them in the right direction towards the people who understand that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003ESomething I think I should also reflect on is the reason why the guardians group was created. I suspect it was that the egos of people in the southern regions are significantly smaller than the egos of the people concerned with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, for example, where all sorts of problems and agendas occur. That is not happening in the far south at this time, so I am delighted to see that we can proceed. In fact, I listened to Dr Smith\u2019s speech, and I think he was quite correct when he said that this group offers a way forward for the future, because it is a blueprint or template. The Romans had a principle they called usufruct, whereby the locals controlled local resources. Sure, there was an input from on high, from the emperor\u2014or, in this case, from Helen Clark. Such input is possible. However, we want to be given no more than input. I think this bill is an excellent opportunity to show the rest of the country, where our marine reserves are being depleted, that it is local people\u2014not the Department of Conservation, certainly not the Forest and Bird Protection Society, and certainly not Kevin Smith\u2014who will show the way to ensure a sustainable future around our coastlines. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b071c5e306c74d6a83eeb109914310af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b071c5e306c74d6a83eeb109914310af\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E Fiordland National Park is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in New Zealand. It has a very special interface between land and sea. Its national and international importance are so great that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. It has ecological features that are simply unique in the true meaning of that word. Because of the fresh water that runs on top of the saltwater, which prevents the light penetrating through that lens, we have extraordinary corals that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot go, and they flourish in those fiords. It is an ecological treasure. But despite that, and despite Fiordland\u2019s long status as a national park and its many years as a world heritage park, only two small areas of the sea are protected. There are only two small marine reserves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EIn addition to that need for additional marine reserves, the fisheries have been in decline for some time. If we talk to old-timers we hear them say more than 10 crayfish pots were regarded as ridiculously unnecessary, because they could not get around more than 10 pots before the first one was full again\u2014they simply could not pull them in fast enough. That is not how the cray fishery is now. The blue cod fishery down there is so threatened that two whole fiords have had to be closed in a r\u0101hui, while the fishery rebuilds. There is conflict between charter boats, recreational fishers, and commercial fishers who are competing for the same fish. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to add my congratulations, too, to the local community, which has sorted out an approach to deal with those issues. The local people have pulled off an extraordinary achievement, and I congratulate them on it. But let us be honest that what initiated this process was the fear of a proposal for a Fiordland marine park and a determination on the part of local people to take matters into their own hands first. Initially they determined that there would be no representative of environmental or conservation interests on their group\u2014no representative whatsoever. It was not just the Forest and Bird Protection Society and it was not just national organisations that were totally shut out; local people with a longstanding concern for marine conservation were also shut out. Initially the group called itself the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment. It was entirely a fisheries resource-sharing arrangement that it was into. That is not to say that many of the people concerned did not have a real love of the marine environment and a desire to protect it, but the fishing issue was of primary concern to them. When the group\u2019s first discussion document went out for comment, it was clear that it considered only fisheries and how to protect a few areas the group called \u201Cchina shops\u201D, where the corals and other wildlife were so precarious that simply dropping an anchor in the wrong place was capable of doing a great deal of damage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EOther members of the community looked at that document and said it was not good enough. They said Fiordland was actually an area that needed to have a balance between fisheries and marine conservation, and there were other interests that needed to be in there. Minister Hodgson, and I give him full credit for this, and got Alan Mark put on the committee. Professor Mark is a person with the skills to work alongside people, and the proof of Alan Mark\u2019s skills in that area is the fact that, after coming into that group at the last minute, and negotiating with the community, the group has provided an outcome that is very significantly better for conservation than it would have been. Alan Mark has brought all of that group on side. I object very strongly to the slanderous and ignorant comments about Professor Mark that were made by Gerry Eckhoff a few minutes ago. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThere are some very good outcomes from that process. There are restrictions on fishing methods that damage unique ecologies. There are reductions in take for threatened fisheries, so that they can rebuild. Commercial fishers have been pushed out to the fiord entrances, in order to protect the inner fiords for recreational fishing or biodiversity reasons. Codes of practice are to be set up to protect \u201Cchina shop\u201D areas, dealing with things such as anchoring and ballast water. The outcome enshrines kaitiakitanga, and not just for customary fishers but so that Ng\u0101i Tahu can be fully represented for other management issues, as well. The bill creates eight new marine reserves. They are small. There are no whole-fiord marine reserves, so there is no complete representativeness. No outer fiords are protected as marine reserves, and there is not a full range of protected eco-systems. But the result is a lot better than it might have been had Pete Hodgson not put Alan Mark on that committee. It is a concern that new applications for marine reserves are outlawed for 7 years, no matter what needs may become apparent in the meantime. But there is a review process in place whereby that could change, if necessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe biggest outcome though\u2014the biggest success\u2014is the community buy-in. It actually does not matter what one does in law, because if the community does not respect the law it will not accept it. Of all the places in New Zealand, Fiordland must be the hardest place in which to get enforcement of fisheries regulations and conservation regulations. So this is a big success. It is not everything it might have been, but it is a good compromise among those who have taken part in the process. It is, actually, an example to the Government of how to do things when there is great contention. Many times this year I have stood in this House and said to the Government, over the foreshore and seabed legislation, that it should just get around the table with M\u0101ori and see whether it could negotiate something that they would accept.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to finish by quoting a comment made by Mark Solomon in the same article from North and South that Gerry Eckhoff has been quoting. Mark Solomon was shaking his head in amazement at the achievement in Fiordland, and said: \u201CIf we dealt with the seabed and foreshore issue like this we wouldn\u2019t have had a problem.\u201D That is what M\u0101ori leaders around the country were saying, and it is very sad that that opportunity was not taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022279894b2f11f4774b7e188260957947f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022279894b2f11f4774b7e188260957947f\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We welcome the introduction of this legislation to the House, and will be supporting its referral to a select committee. I think it is a very good move to see it go to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, where we will have a combination of M\u0101ori members and others to listen to the submitters in this regard. I think that will lead to a very good outcome. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThis bill implements the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy, a strategy that was developed by a local incorporated society called the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment, which represents the major marine environment stakeholders in Fiordland. The development of the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy was notable for its constructive, balanced, and inclusive approach. It was not marked by the degree of rancour often associated with decisions affecting large parts of the marine environment. It was very much a grass roots - driven process, and it may possibly provide a model for future decision making on matters of this nature. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe certainly congratulate those who have played such a significant role in the discussion that has gone on prior to this bill coming to the House. It really must be one of New Zealand\u2019s best kept secrets. It has been going on since the incorporation of the society in 1995\u2014an 8-9 year process\u2014yet most New Zealanders become aware of it only when North and South magazine did an article on it. Then, suddenly, we realised that there were some sensible, common-sense, constructive people in this country who were working through some very complex issues and coming up with some good outcomes. We certainly commend them for it. It is a very, very good example of what is needed and how to go about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI believe that many communities around New Zealand will look with envy at this legislation and the opportunities it will introduce for the conservation goals of the Fiordland area. I think of communities in Auckland right now, in the Hauraki Gulf, that would welcome this kind of approach to addressing the issues of marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf, and, of course, the very controversial one right now at Great Barrier, the Aotea Marine Reserve, which is an example of a shambles of a consultation process. It is an absolute shambles. The thing that we will learn as we go through the select committee stage of this bill is that there has to be a shift away from the Department of Conservation approach to the introduction of marine reserves, and towards a more local involvement, a local initiation even, in the process, and definitely representation on meaningful consultation in the outcomes the community wants to see. The sooner the Department of Conservation realises that slow is faster, the sooner it will achieve the outcomes that it very passionately wants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThis has taken 9 years, but what an amazing outcome we have. The establishment of eight marine reserves will take place and it is without the contention and the rancour of other communities around the country. I do not believe that all communities will take 9 years. I think they had significant issues to work through in Fiordland, and I believe that some communities could achieve it in a much shorter space of time. But regardless of the time, the Department of Conservation has to understand that it must listen to the people of New Zealand, those who treasure their inshore marine environment, and that it must engage them properly and constructively, without secret agendas, and without the involvement of the Forest and Bird Protection Society and its strategy to try to put a sham of consultation across. Again, the issue going on in Auckland around the Great Barrier reserve right now is a disgrace, I believe, to any Government department. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe Department of Conservation should not be the lead agency, and that has been one of the keys to success in this regard. A trust was established and people were invited to be on that and to begin to discuss the issues. That is the secret, I think, to the success that we see before us. We will now be looking into the situation with foreshore and seabed reserves around the country as a result of the foreshore and seabed legislation. I think that that will almost necessitate this kind of approach in future, because where there are foreshore and seabed reserves with M\u0101ori management, it will be absolutely impossible for the Department of Conservation to step into those areas and initiate marine reserves without this kind of consultative approach. I trust that not just M\u0101ori and the Department of Conservation will participate but that other stakeholders in the community will be invited to participate in the same way as has happened in the Fiordland issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future welcomes this approach, and this bill, which establishes a geographic entity called the Fiordland Marine Area, which delineates this bill\u2019s geographical jurisdiction. The coastal marine area around the Solander Islands is adjacent but has been specifically excluded by negotiation, and that is another good point\u2014that it is possible for people to say no in these issues and be listened to and respected. Within the Fiordland Marine Area the bill creates eight special marine reserves, covering nearly 10,000 hectares in total. That is no small feat and it should be welcomed by those in the House who are concerned about the preservation or the conservation interests of our marine environment. I hope that Mr Eckhoff will excuse me for using the word \u201Cpreservation\u201D. I agree with him that that is not what it should all be about. It is about conservation and not preservation, because human beings are allowed to participate in the environment. We are allowed to enjoy that which is being created for us and we do not have to be excluded from those areas in order to take good care of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe bill also creates the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee, which will be important in overseeing the management of the area. The bill amends the proposed Southland regional coastal plan, as it applies to Fiordland for vessel anchoring, diving activities, location and construction of structures, biosecurity, Resource Management Act functions, and marine reserves in china shop areas. \u201CChina shop areas\u201D is an interesting concept. There are some very delicate ecosystems down there that we do not want bulls running around in\u2014like in a china shop. I think they have coined a very good phrase for it. The bill also requires the Ministers and Government departments responsible for resource management, fisheries, marine reserves, and marine biosecurity, and the Southland Regional Council, to recognise and have regard to the advice of the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee. What sweet words those are! How sweet they would be to many, many communities around New Zealand that look forward to that active participation with Government departments in the conservation interests of their local areas. Most New Zealanders want to see good outcomes in their marine environment. They have learnt many things in the last 20 to 30 years. So we welcome the approach that is in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI look forward to being on the select committee that will hear submitters. I believe that there will be concerns, as Gerard Eckhoff has mentioned. Perhaps there will be people who have concerns about the appointment of the guardians. Perhaps that is one thing the select committee will look at, if there is significant concern about it. This Government introduced district health boards in terms of local management of our health services. It would be entirely consistent for there to be, in time, elected representatives on the guardians committee, and indeed, on the conservation boards, as well. They should not all be by appointments. So we will be looking into those matters in the select committee and paying close attention to the submissions. We commend this bill to the House and to the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223a0e52c8-5bb1-4325-9870-21f4e3eb3702\u0022 data-id=\u00221a1841624e4442e6b5456e8f49db74b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223a0e52c8-5bb1-4325-9870-21f4e3eb3702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a1841624e4442e6b5456e8f49db74b4\u0022\u003EMARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour\u2014Hamilton West):\u003C/span\u003E This is a really good bill. I could spend a whole 10 minutes on this, but I will not. This bill shows what creative and innovative Kiwis can do to keep New Zealand clean, green, and sustainable, and I think it underscores what a precious international asset Fiordland is. This bill is an excellent way to manage that asset for future generations. I commend this excellent bill to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d23e73af492745b4bee3040d8af8b4eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d23e73af492745b4bee3040d8af8b4eb\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E That was a substantial contribution from that member and more than we are used to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad564071a2774326b80696599f133876\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Which is a big call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250e107d1bc6d4ca5a33a062b5a92cbb2\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Which is a big call. I do compliment the Ministers who have brought this bill forward. I think the House does not understand how radical a departure it is from the usual vein of environmental policy. Both Pete Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have been involved, and it is great that they have seen the wisdom of a proposal that has emanated from my electorate. I particularly congratulate John Steffens, who has managed this process for a number of years with a mixture of patience, insight, and determination without which this bill would not be here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe reason this bill is such a departure from traditional environmental policy is that it treats the local people as if they have some understanding and sense of stewardship of the Fiordland Marine Area and the national park. The usual way that this Government in particular has done business is to sit in Wellington, decide that it wants to lock something up for the good of the nation, walk all over the local interests, treat them as if they were environmental vandals and do not care, push legislation through with the subtlety of a jackboot, then sit back, watch the controversy, and hope it generates some support in metropolitan areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI had to sit through exactly that process when Labour decided to deal with indigenous forest policy and its impact on my electorate, back in the late 1980s and flowing through into the early 1990s. It ended up being a disastrous policy. It cost the Government tens of millions of dollars to get something it could have got for almost nothing if only it had enlisted the cooperation of the local people. Although people from the Forest and Bird Protection Society sitting in their offices, and the Minister of Conservation sitting in his ivory tower\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232b8157d78524fc8853b612cffc8a03b\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley\u003C/span\u003E: Same office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b1c5a575aba4651b9a12e298cd2cc7d\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the same ivory tower\u2014may think that people who live next to the Fiordland National Park have no idea what a glorious asset it is, in fact they do. In this case, it is the horny-handed fishermen who initiated\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022347a8311526e4dfa87f38b550237da0d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: What?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276d9fe4b4a65486f8474f2947825aec1\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in every way the Minister might care to take that. They initiated the whole idea of the Fiordland Marine Area. The last speaker, the co-leader of the Greens, was right: they did it to head off a ridiculous proposal to turn the whole of the fiords into a marine reserve. That was always stupid. It would have ridden over all the local interests and existing users, and the locals decided to do something about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESo this measure is a new model, and it has a number of characteristics that are desirable. First, it is localised. Professor Mark regards himself as a local. He is a man of much knowledge about the area, but in the end he is a pontificating environmentalist from Dunedin, and I hope, from the positive contribution he has already made, that the Government will not stay wedded to the idea that the success of the whole enterprise has depended on the parachuting in of some academic expert. But the proposition is localised. Local interests generated it, and ultimately they will be the guardians of whether this legislation works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is also more integrated, and I must back up the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith. New Zealand does not have an oceans policy. The management of these coastal areas is fragmented and fractionated. This measure gives the opportunity for at least one part of New Zealand to operate under integrated management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is also flexible. We will have the opportunity to shift the balance of interests as changes in use shift\u2014and a lot of change in use is going on in the fiords, particularly in respect of tourism. It is important that the governance of that area can react to changing circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI want to contrast this exercise with what is going on with the national park plan, a process run by the Department of Conservation. This exercise is participative and consultative; the various interests get a say, and they all feel they have been treated with integrity. That is in sharp contrast to the way that tourism, aviation, and fishing interests are being treated by the Department of Conservation as it draws up the new Fiordland National Park plan. That plan has been in the making for at least as long as this particular proposal. But what happens, after years of talking, is that the Department of Conservation lodges a plan, everyone submits on it, and there are long delays while the department prepares its revised version of the plan. Then, at the last minute, the department makes proposals for drastic changes, particularly in respect of Milford Sound. That has left many of the interests around Fiordland National Park out of the legal process, but, more important, it has poisoned their attitude towards the Department of Conservation, which, in many respects, does not do a bad job. But in this case, when large-scale, last-minute proposals are introduced\u2014actually a rewrite of whole sections of the plan\u2014and people are given 3 or 4 days to react and submit, people have every right to feel they have been duped.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIf the Department of Conservation thinks that is the way it will continue to do business in respect of the national park, then it is wrong. The department ought to pay attention to this legislation, and to the attitudes, the compromises, the vision, and the environmental understanding that lie behind it. The department is doing itself permanent damage in the eyes of many people who work in the national park and have regard for it. I would hope the Minister of Conservation would do better than to act with his usual dismissive arrogance and to take advice from people who have no particular interest in my community. He should intervene in the process of the national park plan and fix it up. Because not many changes were proposed in the initial plan, people did not submit on it. Then, when the department made major changes, it took the legal view and told people that because they did not submit in the first place, they could not submit now\u2014even though the plan looked completely different from the original one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI have a final point to make about marine reserves. Although they are incorporated in this plan, I think they are a concept that has had its day. This plan shows there is widespread willingness to get to grips with the management of marine areas. The idea was that the only thing one can do in a marine area is to have a marine reserve, with all the attendant legal and policing difficulties, but it is now becoming clear that that tool does not work. It is not the best tool to have, and we will be having a scrap over marine reserves at Kaka Point. It is much better for the Crown to pursue the various management options available that take into account the balance of interests in the marine environment, with the understanding that almost everyone has goodwill towards preserving and enhancing that marine environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EAs the local member, I certainly will be supporting the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. I congratulate the local individuals who have put it together. I do not think there is much that the select committee can do to improve on it, and I hope that its hearings on the bill will not be an opportunity for the various bureaucrats and lobby groups who do not like it to come round the back door and try to pull it apart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022553a9b39af204136b49fbc2918c8a67c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022553a9b39af204136b49fbc2918c8a67c\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E I found some of those comments irreconcilable. I too think this bill is good, and it is good that the Government is bringing it to fruition. One of the outrageous statements made by the last speaker was his suggestion that it was this Government that had caused all the problems with native forests in his electorate. I remind him that it was his colleague Dr Nick Smith whose decision illegally to restrain logging in that area, which was struck down by the High Court\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3ea735ed0f8435cb06fe39a40929acb\u0022\u003EGovernment Member\u003C/span\u003E: Denis Marshall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c888f62e2e524e0798a31c268da5ed23\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was not. It was Dr Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc3397646ad44abfad6201ed049abd8a\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: As if you would know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216e6d0fa85684b15b5167a84dbd5c625\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I do on this occasion, because I was representing some of the neighbouring landowners down there. This is good legislation. I agree that it is a model we would like to see spread elsewhere in the country, but I do not agree that there is no future for marine reserves outside this policy framework. I recommend the bill to the select committee and look forward to its progression through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b222708e1b644180b277b98cde7a582f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b222708e1b644180b277b98cde7a582f\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E We in the National Party support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill going to the select committee. We do so on the recommendation of the Hon Bill English, who has been involved in this particular process from the ground floor. Over the last few years we in the National Party caucus have appreciated the updates Bill English has given us from time to time on how the process of establishing this co-management regime is going. He acknowledged those in the guardians group for their work, and he mentioned their determination and participation. What he did not mention was their frustration with having to fight the ivory tower over the years, and I would like to put that on the record. I thank Bill English, on behalf of our caucus, for his work there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EIt comes as some surprise to us in the National Party that the bill will be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, which is fast becoming the clearing house for the Government for controversial legislation. So it is with some trepidation today that we see that. We are wondering what sneaky tricks will come out of that committee that result in this bill and all its good intentions in some way being changed and made a little bit more sinister than they are today. We celebrate the bill. We are nervous about it going to that committee. We do not know what the Government has in mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI suspect, though, that it is about avoiding the Green members who sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Government does not want the Green member who chairs that committee to be involved in the bill, and the Government\u2019s tenuous relationship with the Greens is reflected in this move. That is quite interesting. I reflect on the marine reserves policy that Labour espoused before the election\u2014not the 2002 election but the 1999 election. It said that it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand\u2019s marine area in marine reserves. That was a sop to not just the Green Party but to green voters right across the country. Before that election the Labour Party said it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand\u2019s marine space in marine reserves. Today Labour is saying that 10 percent of New Zealand\u2019s marine space will be in marine protected areas. So it has done a U-turn there. Now it is saying that it did not mean that 10 percent would be marine reserves; now it says that that 10 percent includes shipping lanes, cable protection zones, tai\u0101pure, and m\u0101taitai\u2014any area that is locked up in some way and protected, whether because of shipping, or law to do with M\u0101ori customary rights, or telecommunications, or electricity generation. Those areas fall into the marine protected areas trap. So voters on the green side of life who supported Labour on its hardy marine reserves policy will be very disappointed by the U-turn in that policy that we are seeing espoused today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EOne of the good things this legislation reflects is the degree of consultation that has finally happened with the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The announcement that the Minister of Conservation will be driving through some marine reserves in Northland has prompted moves to have guardians\u2019 groups set up there, as well\u2014for example, the proposal to turn Mimiwhangata Marine Park into a marine reserve\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226727c6edb7c4295a5dd7dfb246c053d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is nowhere near Fiordland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef727e7f8dcb4478bff9013ff628b979\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is fine, but we are talking about a guardians\u2019 group to do with\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022393fd7be2a564b23a3f92d13fd2e44ad\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we are talking about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b07c01b61afe4cf09d1cb915dd9e7a69\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: We are. In due course we will see a bill relating to Mimiwhangata introduced to Parliament, as well, because the only way to make progress in the marine environment, with the fractured approach to the marine environment that the Government is taking, is to have that solution wound out throughout the whole country. We will see that in Northland. The consultation that has finally happened in Fiordland has to happen throughout the rest of the country, and I hope it does. The local people in Fiordland know most about their local marine environment, and the local people in Northland know most about the local marine environment there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EInterestingly enough, the Department of Conservation up north, when discussing its particular marine reserve proposal like the one for Fiordland, tried to do a deal with local hap\u016B for quid pro quo support for aquaculture\u2014the aquaculture interests of hap\u016B would be supported by the Department of Conservation, if local hap\u016B would support the interests of the department in a marine reserve. Local hap\u016B turned round and said no, in that instance. They said that their aspirations as M\u0101ori are exactly the same as the local community\u2019s and local recreational fishers\u2019 aspirations\u2014that there was no distinction, and they should not be approached as a racial group to get some sort of support through the back door, because they shared the same aspirations as everyone else in that marine area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI commend the bill to the House. We will support it going to the select committee. We will be sitting on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and watching very, very carefully to ensure that the rules in the bill are not changed too much in order somehow to appease the Department of Conservation. We will be watching over its progress on behalf of the people in Fiordland and the Hon Bill English, who represents that region very well indeed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3081e61f11d483da4851d61130c3081\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3081e61f11d483da4851d61130c3081\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, and 194(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022396944d2234e4e10955cc9456375850f\u0022\u003EBusiness of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f21d2205e30443b88a2add9c71de3c9f\u0022\u003EBusiness of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cdd50c7ba7284d218cfc659ef46f5926\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cdd50c7ba7284d218cfc659ef46f5926\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the order of the day for the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be postponed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022942cce22dc9a4a22bf223008988cf4f0\u0022\u003EAdjournment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002255235b56da4e489abad0d952b1fb9265\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002254ffff129b1f4c4795a3adb5475b47af\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5a0df38da734ed980ae67935bfb6208\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5a0df38da734ed980ae67935bfb6208\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 February 2005, and that the sitting days in 2005 be as follows: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EFebruary 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMarch 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, and 31; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EApril 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMay 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 31; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EJune 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EJuly 26, 27, and 28; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EAugust 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI begin by thanking the people who are so important to this place, starting particularly with yourself, Mr Speaker, because if rumour has it true, this may well be the last occasion on which you preside over an adjournment debate within the New Zealand House of Representatives. Indeed, rumour may further suggest that you may be translated to another place, which, of course, in the place to which you are going, has another meaning to what it has in this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThat will be capping an extraordinary career that stretches back to 1966, some 38 years in the New Zealand Parliament. You have been here longer than a number of the people in this place have been alive, though it is fair to say that some members opposite have never been alive at any stage during those 38 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EYou have contributed to this place more than the vast majority of people who have ever been here. Your generosity, your ability to understand Parliament, your ability to allow matters to flow yet to step in when you need to step in, and the way in which you know people\u2019s problems, and deal with them\u2014not just those in your own party, but those across the House\u2014has been appreciated by many people over many years. It is an extraordinarily distinguished career. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI thank also, obviously, the Table Office staff, the messengers, the Hansard writers, the security staff, the ministerial and parliamentary staff, all my colleagues in Parliament, and our long-suffering families. In particular, I thank my Government colleagues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIt has been a great but testing year for the Government. We have passed an enormous amount of legislation\u2014by no means a record number of Acts, but then, we have not passed a Statutes Amendment Bill recently, which is the usual way of getting the body count up rather cheaply in that regard. Of course, we passed the Income Tax Act, which is easily the largest single Act New Zealand has\u2014although much shorter than some of its overseas equivalents, I might point out\u2014along with Acts such as the various Acts arising from the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. We have actually passed the largest number of pages in New Zealand\u2019s legislative history, which may come as a surprise to many people, given that we have not sat very frequently under urgency, compared with the many occasions during the 1980s and early 1990s. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ERegarding the economy, we have seen a year in which the New Zealand economy has continued to outperform and surprise with the strength of its growth. As a result, we have seen record low unemployment\u2014the lowest for the last 18 years\u2014at some 3.8 percent. The problem for National is that it does not know how to cope with that success. We have seen the Working for Families package, which will deliver an average of $100 per week into the pockets of families earning between $25,000 and $45,000 per year\u2014those families that really struggle to make ends meet within New Zealand at the present time. It has been a great year for the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI also thank some of the other parties in the House. I thank United Future, which has voted against the Government more often than the Greens have. It has differentiated itself on a whole range of issues. But between United Future, the Labour Party, and the Progressives, there is a form of civil union\u2014if I can put it that way\u2014whereby we are bound to each other by certain matters of agreement, and agree not to step outside that. Even when the Government rejected amendments on the Income Tax Act 2004, nevertheless United Future stood by its word and voted on an issue of confidence with the Government. That has contributed now to the most stable Government under MMP that we have seen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277a406836dd04411a9d14c3438d07684\u0022\u003EOpposition Members\u003C/span\u003E: Soft!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022106f11fee6e44b4b9d64369c985b1570\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: National members say: \u201CSoft!\u201D because they do not have a coalition partner in sight. That is National\u2019s problem. The ACT party is disappearing off the face of the earth, and nobody else wants a bar of it. Mr Peters has not wanted a bar of National ever since Mr Carter, I think it was, was stupid enough to suggest certain matters about a lunch. Ever since then, negotiations between those two have never occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI thank the Greens for their support on a large number of important measures. We relied upon their support to get those measures through Parliament. They have always been reliable to that extent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI thank New Zealand First, which perhaps is a little bit more difficult, on occasion, to deal with. But on the foreshore and seabed issue, it put New Zealand\u2019s interests first and assisted significantly in terms of the passage of the legislation, particularly in terms of some of the content. In that respect, I thank the House this week for correcting a minor drafting error in the Foreshore and Seabed Act with absolutely no debate at all, except for a small comment from Metiria Turei. It is nice that we have now handed back to local government the areas that run to reclamation, which we had unfortunately nationalised by mistake. The National Party did not pick that up at any stage of the debate on the aquaculture legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMy special big thanks goes to Dr Brash and his deputy, Gerry Brownlee. Both Government parties owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr Brash and Mr Brownlee this year. There they sit, the Laurel and Hardy of New Zealand politics. Let us just look at them. All Dr Brash needs is the hat and they would be the perfect imitation of Laurel and Hardy. They behave pretty much the same way as they carried on. The National Party now faces the question\u2014and we have seen it during the last 24 hours\u2014of whether Bill English is on the comeback trail. He has made more serious, thoughtful speeches in this House within the last couple of weeks than Dr Brash has managed to make all year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ead37faaec91456aa2e2e03b10b79002\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2b626e90dc140d59961f42f1319d652\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: His former deputy leader says: \u201CRubbish!\u201D. That is what I call loyalty! He says that Mr English\u2019s speeches are rubbish. No wonder Mr Sowry is retiring! I say to him that he will have to go quickly before he gets pushed out. That explains how Judy Keall beat him so easily in the past and why he will never face up against \u201CDazza\u201D Hughes in the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI say to Mr English to remember John Howard. He has been the Australian Prime Minister for 8 years. He was the leader, he was tossed out, he came back into the Opposition, and he won government. I say to Mr English that there are examples there that he might care to think about over the coming few months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b2697a7f1fc44659f022454da81904e\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: Lazarus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022786c5d5093fe467f8fd3b0e087260530\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I would not say Lazarus. I think he is missing the intermediate necessity in terms of Lazarus. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe second great question that I think is being asked is whether the National Party\u2019s finance team, \u201CDon\u201D and \u201CKey\u201D, will come together. That is the big question facing the National Party in that respect. Indeed, will the National Party\u2019s finance team, \u201CDon\u201D and \u201CKey\u201D, ever manage to agree on anything in terms of finance going forward? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EAbove all, what will Don Brash flip-flop on next? What else is left for him to flip-flop on? Could it be support for the Working for Families package? Could it be support for paid parental leave? That has to occur sometime. I suggest to Dr Brash that going into the election and saying that one will remove paid parental leave will not be a great winner. He came in here, flushed up, as the 10th member of the ACT party. He was going to put backbone into National. He was going to lead it back on the true, right road\u2014in every sense of the word \u201Cright\u201D. What has he done month after month over the last few months? He has crawled back to some kind of populist position whereby he has abandoned every principle he ever held previously as the Governor of the Reserve Bank. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EDo members remember all those speeches he gave as the Governor of the Reserve Bank? He would abolish the unemployment benefit. We have not heard that one from Dr Brash for a wee while. He would basically abolish any kind of industrial relations law, at all. He would cut the top tax rate for the rich. Indeed, if one reads Dr Brash\u2019s speeches, one sees that the tax rate for the rich would be less than the tax rate for the poor. That flat tax stuff from ACT was wimpy, woolly stuff! Dr Brash used to argue that we should not have that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESo the year that started with great promise is ending in whimpering failure. More and more, as the year has gone on, National has resembled\u2014I say National; I will not get personal\u2014a kind of eunuch with a bunch of flowers, if I can put it that way. It has a great approach, but no capacity to follow through when it comes to the crucial moment. That really has been how National has looked, right the way through the year. The bunch of flowers came out at \u014Crewa. Everybody said: \u201CWhat a lovely bunch of flowers you have, Dr Brash.\u201D Then they started looking more closely and focusing on the core of Dr Brash. At the end of the day, they have presumed that he is not up to it when it comes to being the leader of the country. The flip-flops on nuclear, superannuation, 4-weeks\u2019 holiday, and the civil union legislation have unfolded one by one over the last few weeks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWe wish Dr Brash a merry Christmas. He will sit there and think about whether that glint in the sun he can see is Mr Brownlee with a knife or Mr English with a knife. Or maybe it is the new young Lochinvar from the west, Mr Key, who was kind enough to name me politician of the year\u2014which, I have to say, is a charming thing from one\u2019s opponent in politics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022 data-id=\u00227c1eb10874d64eae846ebbdf3558bdaf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c1eb10874d64eae846ebbdf3558bdaf\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E I have much pleasure in supporting the adjournment motion. I do so for two very good reasons. The first is that this has been an awful year for the Prime Minister and she needs a good break. Yes, the economy has been quite buoyant, but every independent commentator knows that the economy has been buoyant\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b772f78b2404f6a9a434e397d3e4fb0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! When I said: \u201COrder!\u201D I meant it. A reasonable amount of interjection is OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c8cbf83903400e8fc53431507063bc\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the economy has been quite buoyant, but every independent commentator knows that it has been buoyant not because of this Government, but despite it. It is because of the much deplored policies of the 1980s and 1990s, the strong commodity prices, the strong inflow of people following September 11, and the very low interest rates around the world. It is not because of the extra compliance costs imposed by the Holidays Act, the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, the Government\u2019s failure to fix the roading crisis, or the Government\u2019s failure to fix the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EWhat do we get for this buoyancy? The average, after-tax, real household income today is no higher than it was when this Government came into office. The real, after-tax income of a household, on average, is no higher now than it was 5 years ago. The gap between the average wage, after income tax, of the New Zealand worker and the average of the Australian worker was just over $5,000 in 1999, and is now almost $9,000 today. Even on the economy the Government has been an abject failure, despite the favourable external circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EHelen Clark has had huge problems with her own Cabinet. Where, may I ask, is Lianne Dalziel\u2014the Minister of Immigration, until she was caught telling something less than the total truth? Where is the Minister for Small Business, who accepted a $300,000 golden handshake after saying he would not accept it? Where is the Associate Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, who resigned because of the dishonesty of this Government over the foreshore and seabed legislation? What about the Minister of Education, who had to be hauled back into line over school closures? What about the Minister of Police, who totally failed to discharge his responsibilities? Then of course there have been all those Government policy U-turns. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4a4845034b04d5fa0f9b5b03a204afa\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There are interjections on both sides, and I am paying particular attention to the fact that members of both the Government and the Opposition were interjecting. I want to hear Dr Brash, and I want now for there to be fewer interjections. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7ecd270b1524e8aa13dc1f17e0899ed\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we changed policy on a couple of issues, but we have always contended that at this time in our history we should be running a bigger than average fiscal surplus. The right thing to do with that fiscal surplus is to strengthen the economy with it and to retire debt, as every householder would, but we accept that most New Zealanders want a superannuation fund they can see. Only the Opposition can take the New Zealand Superannuation Fund off the political football field, and we have done that. We offered to older New Zealanders predictability and certainty. We have accepted that 4 weeks\u2019 annual leave is now being written into collective agreements, but we want to give employees the choice and flexibility so that if they want to work an extra week and get paid for doing that, then they can have that choice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EBut let me list some of the U-turns of the current Government. It did a U-turn on school closures, and another on the policy of funding based on need, not race. The Government said that did not exist; all policies, it said, were based on need, not race. Well, we have suddenly discovered that decile funding is not based on need; it is based on race. It was said that we did not need to fix the Resource Management Act, and the Government scrapped the amendment bill to that Act that National brought in, in 1999. But now it acknowledges that it needs to be reviewed. The Government wanted to decriminalise consensual sex for children as young as 12. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238dbc77082f944eaba64b629a3219649\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I advise members that the time for Dr Brash\u2019s speech is not being used up at this stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5569c0fd3254f25bb39a6771a8361f9\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Goff said, at one stage, that he could sell that to the public. The Government decided to abandon the Social Entrepreneur Fund, and to abandon the Community Employment Group. The Government started off with the concept of the public domain, as I recall, in relation to the seabed and foreshore, but all of a sudden it is Crown ownership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EOf course, all of those changes have been brought about because the Government suddenly realised that it will face a challenge next year. The changes are not about substance; they are about form. Let us take the policy of funding according to need, not race. What about those primary health organisations offering free taxi rides to M\u0101ori and Pacific Islanders, but only to poor, non-M\u0101ori? What about the special quotas for M\u0101ori at universities? And what about Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed? There are so many qualifications, as to be meaningless. We know that secret deals are being done, and that Crown ownership means nothing\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022186ea0bbea794faaaac8f107b62e0d42\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is enough! I am not having interjections in the second person. That member will be going home early. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022462d2c19bda944f793536f633b9b6cd6\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just as you indicated to the member that he would be going home early and then turned to this side of the House, the member muttered some very uncomplimentary remarks towards you. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ad0d58e0e9e459b95c9cb28722b8962\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I was listening to the member, and he was not referring to me. If he had been, he would have been out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1eb1e99def54139bc57ca31f1d30e51\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH\u003C/span\u003E: The New Zealand public is increasingly fed up with the lack of vision from this Government, the suffocating political correctness, the nanny State mentality, the way in which Labour is increasingly driving more and more middle-income New Zealanders to be beneficiaries, and the way in which Labour\u2019s failure to ease the tax burden on hard-working New Zealanders is putting more and more cash into the hands of the Government and the bureaucracy, and driving more and more New Zealanders into debt. Next year, New Zealanders will have a choice between a Government that is driving the country further into dependence, and a Government that will drive New Zealand towards independence and self-reliance. That is my first reason for supporting this motion. My second reason is that Helen Clark will need a good break before the toughest fight of her political career. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, let me finish by thanking you for your hard work, both this year and for many years in the past. This has not always been an easy classroom to chair. I also give thanks to the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers, the police who have accompanied me around the country, my drivers, the Parliamentary Library staff and all the other staff who have assisted the National Party, and of course my parliamentary colleagues for their assistance throughout this year. Thank you very much indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u00226aff35dd33e043b08ca4615c334b4c0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226aff35dd33e043b08ca4615c334b4c0a\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I say to the House that my contribution will not generate anywhere near as much laughter as the last contribution\u2014principally because it will be based on facts and not largely on imagination. But the honourable member did get one thing right, and I warn the Government: it will have a very tough year next year, because the leader of New Zealand First will be back and in full cry. Government members can sit there, but Mr Peters will be here in full cry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI begin by paying tribute to your good self, Mr Speaker. You might have noticed that we have, from time to time, made it a little tricky for you in that chair, but we do wish you well. We recognise you as the father of the House, and I think that that goes for everybody here. We think you have done an honourable job, and we recognise that you have gone overboard at times to be exceedingly fair. We know that you are going to embark on a new career, and I am sure that my New Zealand First colleagues will join me in saying that if you get the opportunity to go to the Dennis Compton Lounge in the Emirates Stadium, I am certain that if you need someone to accompany you, I could find someone to fill that position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7e1811421064b62a1f897a342973568\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Arsenal forever!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232a07f54e6734067a46074f1844fb7a6\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I also wish to thank the staff who work around this complex. They do a magnificent job. Believe it or not, MPs are not the easiest people to work for, and the messengers, security staff, administration staff, parliamentary staff, select committee staff, and Office of the Clerk staff service\u2014if that is the correct word\u2014our needs very, very well indeed. I think it is appropriate at this point in the year that we remember their efforts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI must also thank New Zealand First\u2019s office team. We are fortunate enough to have a team of very competent people. I do not wish to be boastful, but we have a team of very competent advisers, researchers, press staff, and secretaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9f97bac15ba4e5eb5c79f0b6370e30f\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Name one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227745e5eb5df24e04b0004ab9814696a9\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I would be here all afternoon if I named them. I must also thank the many workers, both paid and non-paid, who work outside Parliament on behalf of New Zealand First. Without them we would not be here, and we would not get significantly bigger, come the next election, without their efforts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI also wish to thank my parliamentary colleagues. They are an excellent bunch to work with. Many of them are first-term MPs, and I can honestly say that they have performed exceedingly well in this House. I do not want to say any more, because they will not get their heads outside the building; but they are a great bunch to work with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThis has been a somewhat unique year, principally because it was the 150th anniversary of Parliament. That is the very special year in the parliamentary calendar. That fact was recognised, but we probably could have done a little bit more to sell the celebration to the public. During the year we witnessed not one but several large protests on Parliament\u2019s grounds\u2014from the h\u012Bkoi on the seabed and foreshore through to the Enough is Enough march recently. We have had pretty much every world view presented to us, and I think the MPs have listened, to a very large extent, with an open mind, and have been very fair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWe have passed in the House over 100 pieces of legislation this year. That is quite a lot, and it represents a lot of hard work by many, many MPs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdb310ef80454f7c9f446cec21674a9f\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: What about the poor people who have to live with them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c48012837d94665a02003f7e28b9617\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Hide that we have passed laws that ensure that the seabed and foreshore are in public hands and will remain there. I wish to thank the Labour Government in particular for working with New Zealand First on its idea to pursue that. We have passed laws that allow for civil unions, and I suspect that we will see a few of those after the next election. We have seen the resolution of the allocation of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries assets after more than a decade, and New Zealand First in particular welcomes that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI cannot let this occasion pass without a making comment on the Supreme Court. I have to say to the Labour members: \u201CWe told you so.\u201D That is not a phrase I use very often, but we told the Government that there would be problems if it did not listen to us on the Supreme Court. The court has already demonstrated why its lack of experience on some issues makes it a perilous place as our final court of appeal. We have opened Pandora\u2019s box, and now we will have to live with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ENext year is election year, and it will be a dynamic year as far as New Zealand First is concerned. I have some words of caution for people on both sides of this Chamber. I say to my ACT friends\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284aff59e39da438e938c026d9c5ec785\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Name one!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d87151543d84297975de30c1a72e6da\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I think I might have one. But, so that I get it right, I say to my ACT colleagues that they should not attack the Government\u2019s social welfare policies too much next year, because, come September, they will need them. I say to United Future members that they should pay close attention to the national anthem, because if God does not save them, the worm sure will not. I have a message for National members. They have pinched one or two\u2014or three or four or five\u2014of our policies, but we will not divulge any more. They can watch the next election and pay careful attention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThat brings me to my final point. I am putting this Government on notice. Winston Peters will be back here in full cry. Our team will be refreshed and willing to go, and Government members will feel the pain. So I hope they have a happy Christmas, because they will have a darn hard new year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EFinally, on behalf of New Zealand First, I wish all members a merry Christmas. I promise them that it will be tough next year, so they should have a good break. I say to all New Zealanders, on behalf of our leader, in particular, and the parliamentary team, that I wish them a safe and happy Christmas. Let us hope that next year we can do better for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u00223a4921949df54c39b15c1ba934976c67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a4921949df54c39b15c1ba934976c67\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support this adjournment motion, and to thank heaven that the year in Parliament is ending, because, as my colleague Peter Brown from New Zealand First has just said, 100 pieces of legislation have been passed by this Parliament this year. Peter Brown said it was hard work passing them. Well, he should try being one of the people who is trying to live with the legislation that this Government has passed this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI would like to thank on behalf of the ACT party the hard-working business people in this country, who have had another year of being under unrelenting attack from the Government. Last year, it was estimated that the average medium-sized business in New Zealand was confronting an extra $43,000 in costs. One might ask where those costs came from. Actually, they came from the Government. The Government piled on another $43,000 worth of costs. [Interruption] I know that David Cunliffe has not done a thing in this House until now, the last minute, when he wants to have his say, but I say to David Cunliffe that he should think about that situation of business\u2014$43,000 of extra costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EIt has got worse this year. On top of 30 new taxes, new levies, and excise duties, there has been the employment relations legislation and costly health and safety requirements, and now we have business attacked by the Holidays Act. There are more costs being borne by business. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen was asked in this House about all the taxes he had put up. He could list a few of them. Then he was asked to name one tax or levy he had dropped. He could not think of one. Well, I will tell him one that he did drop, and that was the tax rate on M\u0101ori authorities. He conveniently forgot the fact that under this Government there are now two tax rates, one if people are M\u0101ori and one if they are not. I think this House should wish a very merry Christmas to every small business in this country, because, my heavens, those businesses have been struggling under this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EAnd we should not forget every working Kiwi and household in this country, who actually pay our way. We should think about them. New Zealand householders continue on with good cheer when, as Michael Cullen admitted in this House last week, after 5 long years of Labour\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and I tell Mr Cunliffe to think of this\u2014they are no better off in real terms. Michael Cullen said there was a 10.1 percent increase in net income. What was the inflation rate over that time? It was exactly 10.1 percent. Yet the average household is having to pay an extra $2,910 in tax. I know that David Cunliffe does not like to hear that, but it is true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWhat is Michael Cullen\u2019s response? He says they are getting a social wage. What have we learnt about the social wage? We have discovered that under Annette King the health waiting lists are longer than they have ever been in our history. That is the truth about the health waiting lists, under Labour. It pours in money at the top, and there are longer waiting lists. We have learnt this about Annette King: there are more people dying on our waiting lists than ever before in our history, and that is a direct response to this Labour Government\u2019s policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f4f9d2a6aba48a3aeb326a4e4b77468\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022564b8a2989284d48971c968f7653a9b7\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Phil Goff laughs; he thinks that people dying when on the waiting list, because of his Government\u2019s ideology, is funny. I say to Mr Goff that the ACT party does not think that people dying when on the waiting list is anything to laugh about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI would like to wish Michael Cullen a good Christmas, but he has had his present already from each and every taxpayer in New Zealand. This Government is awash with cash. I can see Michael Cullen sitting there like Scrooge this Christmas, swimming amongst that money\u2014all paid for by hard-working New Zealanders who struggle to make ends meet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003ETo the Prime Minister I say: \u201CTake it easy on the roads this summer. You don\u2019t know what sort of maniac could be coming towards you, at what speed. So please, Prime Minister, slow down, take it easy, and be careful on the roads.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI see that Mr Winston Peters has taken his holiday early. I understand that he really has not recovered from the fact that we now have in our Parliament not one Chinese member but two\u2014one on each side of him. He has had to retreat to the hills early, because he is upset that there is an Asian takeover\u2014not only of the country but of this Parliament as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI understand that Margaret Wilson has asked for her stocking to be filled with copies of the Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 Rulings, and that she will be spending the summer studying them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI wish the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, a good Christmas. As he said to me yesterday, it is only 59 sleeps for him until Christmas. For Parekura Horomia, there are 59 sleeps until Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI wish the Greens a happy Christmas, but I do not quite know how it will work. We have heard from the Greens that we are not allowed to eat strawberries this Christmas. We will have to have pavlova without strawberries, because every time we eat a strawberry we are making the ozone hole bigger. I say to the Green members that I hope they get the presents they want, but they must be pretty miserable presents, because I know that this year they want presents for New Zealanders to be smaller and unwrapped. I have to say that wishing that all New Zealanders have small presents that are not wrapped, and not too many of them, so as to save on wastage, does take the fun out of Christmas. Well, it might be a happy Christmas because Mike Ward said that he hopes people\u2019s Christmas stockings are stuffed with vouchers promising special favours to indulge a fantasy or a passion, to love, or to picnic in the park. I have to say that is a kind wish, but I say to Sue Kedgley and to Jeanette Fitzsimons: \u201CPlease, no vouchers in my stocking!\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI wish United Future party members a good Christmas. I hope it is a gay Christmas for them. I hope they have a gay time of it. [Interruption] No, I say to Mr Dunne that I want him to have a gay Christmas. I hope it is a very gay Christmas, and that he does not take down in disgust the fairy on top of the Christmas tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EOn behalf of the ACT party I say that it is good for us to end the year with a full complement of nine MPs, and to have Mr Kenneth Wang join us. I want to thank all the MPs on our side, and I particularly want to thank Richard Prebble, who has been a stalwart in this House and particularly good to me, as the new ACT leader.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI want to thank you, Mr Speaker. This is your 38th adjournment debate, and I understand that you are not going to have a 39th, so we wish you a very good Christmas and we will see you in the new year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWe want to thank all the messengers, the clerks, the staff of Bellamy\u2019s, the library staff, and all the people who work in Parliament, especially the executive secretaries who work beyond the call of duty. I want to wish all the family members of MPs an especially good break. I sometimes think they suffer the most through the year. I especially want to thank the ACT team of staff, who this year have performed well beyond the call of duty. I wish everyone in this House and everyone in our Parliament a good Christmas and a safe Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00223c4f51f5015340fa92fefdf091f7a924\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c4f51f5015340fa92fefdf091f7a924\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The House has sent a very mixed message to New Zealanders this year. We have passed a number of measures that have shown New Zealand to be a tolerant and fair society\u2014a number of measures of which I am proud: the Civil Union Bill, the Care of Children Bill, the employment relations legislation, and legislation relating to the decriminalisation of prostitution. Those pieces of legislation, which protect people who are not in the mainstream and are not in the majority, went through only because of the Green Party\u2019s support and we are proud to have supported them. We are proud that New Zealand is a better place because of those pieces of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EAt the same time, we have damaged our reputation of being a fair and tolerant society, in a number of ways. We have driven a wedge between M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 because of the processes that were used to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We have kept an overseas-elected member of Parliament and scholar in prison for 2 years, with no charges, despite his having refugee status. The Greens welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court\u2014created last year, with the help of our vote\u2014to treat Mr Zaoui in a more decent and civilised manner. Parliament has introduced the Charities Bill, an attack on the voluntary sector, which threatens to shut down most of the voluntary sector by setting completely unreasonable expectations and by threats of complete impoverishment if that sector involves itself in advocacy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI think the Government should take note of today\u2019s judgment of the British law lords, who wrote: \u201CThe real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of people living with its tradition and laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.\u201D With that in mind, we appeal to the Government not to proceed with bills and projected bills to toughen up the onerous security risk certificate procedure and the Terrorism Suppression Act, and proposals to give a Cabinet Minister, rather than a judge, the right to take away a New Zealander\u2019s passport on national security grounds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Greens have had some highlights this year. Nandor Tanczos\u2019 Clean Slate Bill, introduced some 5 years ago, and renamed and put in the name of the Minister, has now passed into law, thereby giving many people who committed some indiscretions years ago a new start in life with a clean slate. We are proud to have initiated that change, and we are proud that it has passed through Parliament, even though in a somewhat different form. We now have the ability to go into pubs and cafes, without coming out smelling dreadful. The smoke-free legislation was not a Green bill, but it passed only because of our vote. I particularly acknowledge Sue Kedgley\u2019s hard work on the select committee and on the bill, and, of course, I also acknowledge Steve Chadwick, who introduced the bill. That is progress in terms of having a healthy atmosphere for people to breathe. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe year began for us with a big campaign to protect New Zealand\u2019s largest braided river from proposals to take away 73 percent of its water for 60 kilometres. Project Aqua was in full cry a year ago, threatening the Waitaki River, and on 30 March, after more than 6,000 submissions from ordinary people on the resource consent said \u201CLeave our river alone\u201D, finally Project Aqua was withdrawn. I think that marks the end of the major \u201Cthink big\u201D projects that destroy rivers that are essential to the well-being of New Zealanders and of our wildlife. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EWe have watched the gradual implementation of the new transport strategy and Act. The Government took our advice, after 2\u00BD years, to get back the rail track and it has put $200 million into repairing it and building it up. We welcome that decision. It is already starting to bear fruit. New lines are opening, and Fonterra is making a commitment to use it. Some logs are moving from road on to rail because of assistance from the new Transfund rules. We have seen a big increase in public transport use over the last few years, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to end by extending my thanks and Christmas greetings to you, Mr Speaker, for your work through the years you have been in the Chair. I recognise that this will be your last Christmas in this particular job, and I wish you well for the holidays and for your new position. I also thank the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers. To all my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you a good Christmas and a good holiday. To the Green Party staff and volunteers, who are totally dedicated and have kept us going this year, to the select committee staff, the people from the library, the people from the Clerk\u2019s Office, to all of those who feed us, clean our offices, deliver our mail, and look after our security, I wish all of you happy times with family and friends, rest and recreation, and time outdoors away from air conditioning and computers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to remember those for whom Christmas is the most desperate and miserable time of the year\u2014all of those for whom other people\u2019s joyful families and high living make their own lack of family and their own poverty seem even more extreme. I recognise those women and children for whom Christmas means more violence and abuse because of the stress of the Christmas season and the abuse of alcohol. For them I wish that Christmas may treat them less harshly than usual and that we may all watch out for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u002216339af6012d4af5a47dc90dfcd293f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216339af6012d4af5a47dc90dfcd293f6\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I want to begin by placing on record what I consider to be a very severe constitutional outrage perpetrated by our new Supreme Court. It is appropriate that I do so now because this is the first occasion to raise this outrageous matter. The court, by ruling in the way that it did in restoring the ACT party to its full membership at the general election, has changed the speaking order in this House, which means that United Future and other parties now have to follow the Greens. The outrage of that is that because of the grimness of that message from a party better known as the \u201CGroans\u201D, most New Zealanders will have switched off the debate by now. That is an extraordinary assault on democracy perpetrated by our Supreme Court. This is supposed to be the time of happiness and goodwill. I think that by and large this debate has shown some of those traits in some degree of moderation. The last speech was the exception in that regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThis is, Mr Speaker\u2014and I do not like the phraseology that some have sombrely referred to\u2014your last Christmas in this place. I think that has a degree of horrible permanence about it. I prefer to see it in the light that the Deputy Prime Minister did. This is the last Christmas you will have here before your translation to another place. In the context of where you are going, that translation may mean elevation to a Chamber not dissimilar to this, where the carpet is red rather than green. We on this side of the House applaud your contribution over 38 years. We applaud the way in which you have guided the affairs of this House as its Speaker since 1999, your friendship and your counsel to so many members at so many different times, and your astute taste when it comes to the finer things in life. We look forward not only to your very successful execution of your new duties in London, when they are eventually announced, but also to having the opportunity to call upon you and share with you in the facilities that will make it possible for you to carry out those duties to your usual and accustomed standard. New Zealand will be seen in a truly new light as a result of your translation to London, and maybe even the cricket team will improve accordingly and perform better next time it is at Lords. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThis has been, as many have observed, an extraordinary year, and this has already been an extraordinary debate. The Government is criticised by the Opposition for changing policies. On the other hand, the Opposition says that its policy changes are all part of a refinement and a careful appreciation of what New Zealanders actually want, and are part of an ongoing policy development. New Zealanders are trying to find out where the balance lies between the two. The reality is that we are now in our most stable period of Government ever under MMP because we have a Government with a reliable support partner. When I hear Mr Brown say that we should wait for next year because New Zealand First is on the way, I think that those few New Zealanders who are listening to the debate will recoil in horror. What they are reminded of is Brava cafe, a 9-week coalition circus, a whole lot of irresponsible, incompetent, and idiotic members and Ministers, some of whom are foolish enough to show their presence in the House this afternoon, and then\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d00783aa7da24cad83176735c2579b63\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I wasn\u2019t a Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c0dc356faef4e2680bc95808956747a\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: No, the member was not a Minister. He was not even good enough to aspire to that low level, and he will not be again. A member whose best achievement in life is to parade his kneecaps and his parliamentary rugby blazer emblem has little to be proud of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280adc8cdbdfb4f91bc8f6c1605c25534\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: The poodle of New Zealand politics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224920b9594e3b47b994a5c32961216ef9\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: Then he resorts to animal insults. Better a quip. The next time Mr Mark goes around the racetrack he should just remember that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229040c3301eab436c85f16e6cf5511f76\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: And merry Christmas!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac61923dce504b38a09fbe6afbc1f538\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: It is a very merry Christmas. I want to pay a tribute to Mr Mark. We are grateful at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for having the wisest military analyst and strategist since Montgomery serving amongst us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EWhat I was saying was that the warning from Mr Brown that New Zealand First is on the way back scares most New Zealanders. What they do not want to repeat is the worst period of Government under MMP, the shortest period of any administration under MMP to date, when New Zealand First was in the loop. That is the last thing New Zealanders want to go back to. It is no coincidence that the economic performance of the last couple of years, the growth that has occurred, and the fact that New Zealanders are feeling more positive about their future than ever before, occurs because they have a Government that is stable and reliable. There is no debate, as there was when Mr Mark and his cronies were in the loop, about when the plug would be pulled. That was a daily occurrence and eventually the prophecy came to be true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI want to say on this occasion that we often forget many of the people who contribute to making this Parliament work effectively, and we should take time to acknowledge them and give them our thanks for the work they do: the messengers, the security staff, the catering staff, the library staff, our own research and political staff, all the people who do the routine things, the maintenance staff, the people who make this place run well. They are the people we ought to think of right now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI pay a tribute to my own colleagues. Judy Turner is my new deputy leader, and I congratulate her on that move. I thank our whip, Gordon Copeland, for the work he has done, and all of my team for what has been an extraordinary year of effort. The select committees have worked well because of our intervention. Our presence in the House on many, many matters has been the difference, and we have ensured that this place operates smoothly and in the interests of good government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI say to Dr Brash that I listened to his speech with some interest. I am sure he will acknowledge that if he is to become Prime Minister of New Zealand at some point in the future, he will need a stable and reliable partner. He needs to think about what his options are. Dr Brash will know what I mean. He is sensible enough to know, as are his colleagues who support him\u2014Mr Brownlee, I see, smirks eerily\u2014that, in fact, under this system of Government, we have developed good partnership arrangements. The important thing\u2014[Interruption] The member talks about his own potential excitements. The ACT party\u2019s obsession with political and other prostitution demonstrates why it has never been near a Government and never will be. That is because what a proportional system of Government requires\u2014and this was the point that I was making to Dr Brash\u2014is a centre party that can work reliably and constructively and can provide good Government to whichever of the major parties it is working for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2f848b9f4af4fd5b3d9b3977af3f037\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Reliable doormat!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022622130ea00bc4bbbbb58780f303d73cf\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: The member says \u201Creliable doormat\u201D, and others laugh at that. The reality is that if we listen to what New Zealanders say at election time\u2014and they have said it ever since New Zealand First came on the scene\u2014we hear that the last thing they like\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231d16a7d0ea545e3998f09efb2d3965c\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re hurting me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022357694b115bf4d018c2648c5017f9f8d\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: I am not talking to that gentleman. He does not matter. [Interruption] I am happy to wish the member opposite a very happy Christmas. I am sure she will enjoy it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThe point I am making is that in this environment a stable, moderate, reliable centre party is what the country requires. New Zealanders do not like the notion of small parties holding Governments to ransom; they want to see them work constructively to achieve positive outcomes. The boorish heckling to my right demonstrates why those parties will not get the chance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EAs Christmas approaches this year, I also express my best wishes to all those who will be suffering this Christmas\u2014families who are divided, people with family members who are overseas serving in our armed forces or in other working environments, widows, the lonely, and people who have sad memories at this time. One group of people in particular who have sad memories\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289b95319d0b74c1d9491e7aa8b6d51cb\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: The National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202557d53cb4b47dd915fe8e722e9521c\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014apart from the National Party\u2014are those who have lost loved ones in accidents at Christmas times past. I think it is important for us to think about those people as we go about having what I am sure will be a good celebration with family and friends. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThis place can be rigorous. I want to end by wishing all members, from all sides, whatever divisions we have had during the year, a very happy Christmas, a peaceful New Year, and the best of luck in 2005.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022 data-id=\u0022edd1f447cee04a0e80ae1277495b1249\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edd1f447cee04a0e80ae1277495b1249\u0022\u003EHon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader\u2014Progressive):\u003C/span\u003E It is now a few short days before we will be with our families and our friends for the summer holidays. We in the Progressive Party particularly want to thank our colleagues in the Labour Party for helping to provide a stable and effective coalition partnership. We have found them at all times to be reliable and thoughtful. We have resisted people wanting us to use the term \u201CProgressive-led Government\u201D in our brochures. We are insisting that they give it the proper name: the Labour-Progressive Government. We also want to thank United Future for being there for confidence and supply, making this minority Government\u2014which was unfortunate enough to lose one of its members\u2014a stable Government during this period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EI would like to thank my co-whips in the Labour Party. They have learnt a lot while I have been their co-whip, particularly my different phone numbers at different locations around the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EThis is a time to talk, read, and reflect for 4 long weeks. It is also a time to thank our lucky stars, and the sacrifice of the generations before us, for the robust, democratic, and vibrant society we enjoy living in. I chose this as my home many years ago\u2014although I must report that the Minister of Internal Affairs did ask me, when he gave me my citizenship, whether I had checked that I had signed every part, and whether I could perhaps give him a look at it. I thank Mr Burton for advising me of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EEach and every one of the eight parties represented here is a direct descendant of the Magna Carta and a child of the Glorious Revolution, whether 1688 or 1689 is put as the date of that revolution. Once the wheels of liberty and freedom start in motion, they are unstoppable. It is fair to say that all eight parties in Parliament have at one stage or another contributed to making New Zealand a better place over the past 12 months. We all carry on our shoulders the responsibilities of protecting the inalienable right to liberty, to freedom, to be protected, and to be secure on these shores. We have a robust system of law, and so it is that we have freedom and liberty. We have a proportional representation voting system that delivers a Parliament to reflect the diverse, dynamic society we are. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EFor the six parties that are not called Labour or National, mixed-member proportional representation offers us so-called third parties an opportunity never enjoyed before MMP to make a positive difference to the day-to-day government of our nation and the well-being of our people. The challenge before all of those who are third parties is to seize the opportunity and embrace the responsibility as best we can. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EAs I reflect on the past 12 months, I feel proud of the Progressive Party\u2019s role in ushering through the process of the Budget 2004 round, programmes that are today offering meaningful, practical assistance where needed. The half a billion dollar growth and innovation package in Budget 2004 is deepening the ability of Kiwi companies to compete in the world economy as part of a creative, optimistic, and technologically advanced country. Budget 2004 allocated an additional $39 million to tackle the illegal methamphetamine trade and organised crime over the next 4 years. Progressive initiatives in the coalition Budget included policies aimed at reducing the demand for drugs. We have made provision to care for the victims of the drug peddlers, with nearly $15 million over 4 years on drug-related health initiatives, and $5.5 million over 4 years dedicated to supporting suicide prevention measures. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EIn practical terms, that means residential treatment services in the central region for those suffering from alcohol and other drug problems. It means funding for secondary prevention training, which is relevant to those working in the criminal justice system, budgetary advice, social services, and in primary health organisations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EProgressive sought funding for a pilot programme of alcohol and other drug clinicians at court. We also sought, and got, funding to provide independent evaluations of the 15 Community Action on Youth and Drugs sites established in the 2003 Budget round, because even the best programmes in the world need evaluation and auditing. The Progressive Party sought in the 2004 Budget a new discretionary fund to provide money for new projects to promote our campaign for safer, drug-free communities. We secured new funding to institute one-for-one exchange in the needle and syringe programme, and significantly boosted funding for the independent New Zealand Drug Foundation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003ESo it has been a busy 12 months. It has been a busy year for the Prime Minister, who I believe will create New Zealand history and become the first-ever Labour leader to win three general elections. A centre-left Government has had not even the remotest hope of winning a third consecutive election for three generations\u2014not since 1943. It is a great tribute to Helen Clark that we are on the threshold of seeing history made next year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EThe most unexpected highlight for me personally happened last week when the National Party endorsed a minimum 4 weeks\u2019 annual leave for all workers. Minimum 4 weeks\u2019 annual leave for working families, which just 2 years ago was but a hopeful vision outlined in a Progressive Party member\u2019s bill, is now absolutely cemented in as a key piece of New Zealand\u2019s cultural framework. I thank Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, and now National for making that so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003ENext year, I will be praying\u2014to use that word advisedly\u2014that fate again favours families and that my member\u2019s bill on tackling alcohol-related harm is drawn from the lottery known as the members\u2019 ballot process. I am a member who has changed his mind on the policy of setting the drinking age at 18. I have done so because of the evidence of public health experts. I would rather lose the votes of 18-year-olds\u2014my own son amongst them\u2014than see young people on morgue tables. I am told that even if my bill is plucked from the ballot next year, I should not hold my breath\u2014alcohol-induced or otherwise\u2014that the bill will ever get the support it needs to become law. But I cannot get it out of my mind that that was precisely what I was told when my member\u2019s bill on 4 weeks\u2019 leave was selected from the ballot on 7 November 2002, just 2 years ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EThere is a set of constitutional issues hanging over New Zealand. I have heard my colleagues speak on the question of judicial activism. I say with deep respect to Dr Michael Cullen that it is a mistake to say that the clash is between Parliament and the judiciary. I believe that the judiciary of this country has been interpreting the law faithfully and accurately. The clash is between those members of the executive who do not like the decision. That is very different from a clash with Parliament and the executive. I would ask that when we have a look at the constitutional review we make sure we look at the deepest and most sound principles of constitution-making in a democracy. Judicial activism is not a phrase that we can accurately use about our judiciary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EI said to my good friend Steve Maharey that I would give a speech he would like. He and I both have admiration for the Italian theorist and leader of the Italian working class, Antonio Gramsci. In 1924, Antonio Gramsci was sentenced by Mussolini\u2019s prosecutors. The prosecutor asked him to shut down that great brain for 20 years. I believe that that is what we tried to do in this country to the Algerian MP Ahmed Zaoui. I ask members of Parliament to read the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision during this holiday. I wish them a very, very merry Christmas in doing so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003ELastly, may I say that I also hope that when we come back to the new Parliament the new Speaker, following in your great footsteps, will be able to reflect on the fact that the opening of this Parliament should be an appropriate opening for all members of New Zealand\u2019s public, whatever their religion, their culture, or their beliefs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00224911c2552f774da9af1c10fa5b08af6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224911c2552f774da9af1c10fa5b08af6d\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E It did not take long before the Government caved in on the urgency motion. It was very tough to start with. Dr Cullen stood in the House a week ago and proclaimed the legislation that would be passed under the urgency motion. But United Future had said that it was too soft for that. It agreed to go only to 6 o\u2019clock on Friday. So what happens? The lawyers wait again as the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill is thrown to one side and the soft Labour Party caves in, ready to go home for a holiday that is not well deserved. But before making a contribution\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202b97742fc3049828672c4f7a13d8493\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: You voted against the urgency motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e8aa0227edd487dbb8f4cbc003d1fad\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: That was a great interjection from \u201CFarrah Fawcett\u201D Hughes! I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. I thank the Assistant Speaker and Deputy Speakers, the Clerk of the House, the select committee staff, the messengers, the security team, the Bellamy\u2019s staff, the travel office, and the Hansard staff. I thank the National leader\u2019s office staff and researchers, my staff, and the Opposition whip\u2019s office very much for their contribution this year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EBut sitting across on the Government\u2019s side of the House is a hopeless, old, tired, boring Government. Let us look at what could happen on Monday in the Cabinet reshuffle. The Hon Steve Maharey is obviously heading to be the next Minister of Youth Affairs so that he will finally understand the COOL IT programme. Trevor Mallard\u2019s subtlety and intelligence will be welcomed as the next Attorney-General. Margaret Wilson was not a popular choice for Speaker, to be fair. Nevertheless, the taxi drivers around town in their discussion about that appointment will drive down the numbers that the Labour Party currently enjoys in its poll rankings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EPhil Goff will be the next Minister of Health, with particular responsibility for those who are hearing impaired. Mark Burton will be the next \u201CMinister for the Terminally Misled and Disappointed\u201D. He was promised the job, month after month, year after year after year, but he was pipped at the post and will now be the next \u201CMinister for the Terminally Misled and Disappointed\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003ESteve Chadwick will be the next caucus chair for the \u201CCommittee for Those Who Missed Out Again\u201D. I invite Steve Chadwick to the Cheltenham Tavern, which is 20 kilometres out of Feilding, because I want her to be in the room\u2014and I want to be with her\u2014when she tells a shearer who has just shorn 300 sheep and is about to have his first pint with a roll-your-own that he cannot smoke. I want to be in the room when Steve Chadwick says that to the shepherd. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EDoes anybody remember Judith Tizard? The \u201CMinister for Champagne Flutes\u201D! What a mess this Government has been in. Steve Maharey has had a nightmare in tertiary education. Bill English has emerged triumphant in the tertiary education debate this year. George Hawkins is holding on by the skin of his teeth. He was completely duped by Tony Ryall from the start to the end of this year. Lianne Dalziel is gone. John Tamihere is gone. The Prime Minister was gone at 180 kilometres per hour through the Canterbury Plains. We will see whether she gives evidence in February. That will be the most interesting question of the new year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EBut the highlight of the year for me was when David Cunliffe, who had not been in the media for 6 months, did what any good New Zealand man would do and bleached his hair. He arrived in the Chamber with bleached hair to get more media attention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003ESo this Government goes home at the end of this year, soft on the urgency motion, caving in at the first sign of pressure, with TVNZ in an absolute mess, resignations demanded, then not accepted, and the Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen on this issue or on the foreshore and seabed issue. Where was she, instead? She was doing an impersonation of Lady Diana outside the Taj Mahal, and what an extraordinary sight that was! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI just say to my friends in United Future that making amendments to drop tax rates, then voting for a bill that does the opposite, is not smart politics at all. In the end, that party will be starved of political oxygen for longer than 21 days. I say to Mr Adams that they are in big trouble. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003ENational, on the other hand, has had a great year. Don Brash single-handedly rocked the political landscape of New Zealand with one speech. That is the Brash phenomenon. This caucus is united behind Dr Brash, and we will see him elected Prime Minister next year. This Government is old, tired, and boring. Its time is up. Merry Christmas to you all!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022a25fd351b58949efbd2350741ac2d8f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a25fd351b58949efbd2350741ac2d8f3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Fellow members of Parliament, as the second session of the forty-seventh Parliament comes to a close I wish to pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of this House. I particularly want to say how proud I was to be here in the 150th year of our democracy. I want to pay special tribute to the work that was done by Michelle Janse, Beverley Cathcart, and others, in helping that to be such a wonderful occasion. I must acknowledge the support of my colleague and Deputy Speaker, Ann Hartley, and congratulate her on a very good year\u2019s work. I also thank Assistant Speakers Clem Simich and Ross Robertson, both of whom have the respect and admiration of the House. As a team they have been very great to work with. I extend my profound thanks to Clerk of the House, Dave McGee QC. Mr McGee is widely respected internationally for his profound knowledge, and in my time as Speaker I have come to value very greatly his sound advice and support to me, personally, as well as his role in the efficient conduct of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EThank you also to the Deputy Clerk of the House, Mary Harris, and to all members of the staff of the Clerk\u2019s Office for their professional and administrative skills in servicing the Table of the House, compiling Hansard records, processing legislation, questions and petitions, and serving select committees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EI thank the general manager of Parliamentary Service, Joel George, in this, his first full year, for the excellent job that he has done, for his professional advice and effective administration of this essential area. To all the senior managers of the Parliamentary Service, members of the support staff, including members\u2019 executive securities, support staff of the various parliamentary parties, staff of the Parliamentary Library\u2014and I think the library staff this year have been extraordinarily good to work with\u2014Chamber and gallery officers, security staff, building services staff, telephonists, travel office staff, and the reception and visitor services staff, I give my special thanks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EThanks to Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, and to all those who work with him to uphold the traditions and propriety of the Chamber, and to welcome visitors to the parliamentary galleries. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament. Thank you to Chief Parliamentary Counsel, George Tanner, and his staff, for their role in processing legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EMy thanks to all those who have worked to support the committees that I chair\u2014the Business Committee, the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Standing Orders Committee, and the Officers of Parliament Committee. I would also like to thank the Controller and Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, and his staff for the highly professional services they provide, and thank you also to the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, his fellow Ombudsman, Mel Smith, and their staff for the valuable role they play. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EI wish also to acknowledge today the sterling contribution of Judge Anand Satyanand, who recently resigned his Ombudsman role. Thank you also to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003ETo the leaders of parties in this House, their deputies, the Leader of the House, Dr Michael Cullen\u2014who does occasionally even cause me to have to stop and laugh\u2014and the party whips, I give my thanks. I acknowledge the efforts of all members of Parliament. I am one of those who believes that during all the time I have been in Parliament, just about every member of Parliament does work enormously hard in the interests of his or her constituents\u2014and with different views, but that is part of a democracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EA special thankyou to the research services for their work on behalf of MPs in sometimes making the speeches that MPs give vaguely intelligent. I extend a personal thanks to my own staff, Sean Rota, Pam Reader, Roland Todd\u2014who keeps count all the time for me\u2014Bethney McLennan, and Nury Olivares, as well as to Helen Kennelly, from the Deputy Speaker\u2019s Office, and Jill Forbes, from the Chamber and gallery staff, for additional support during the year. Thanks also to my electorate secretaries in west Auckland, Christine Schuster, Margaret Sutton, and Shibo Zhang, for their important efforts on behalf of constituents. I thank you all again for all your support and work throughout the year, and for the contribution you make, not just to this House, but also to New Zealand and its peoples. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EI would like to thank the various leaders who have spoken today, and I thank them very much for the very kind comments they have made about me. As I draw this session of Parliament to a close and you go to join your friends and family for the coming break, I wish you all well until we meet here again in February 2005. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 5.03 p.m. (Friday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041214a01b84a4bf3c42948924e49a3fbb80bb000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"