Wednesday, 10 December 2003

Wednesday, 10 December 2003

Wednesday, 10 December 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Minister of Finance, Republic of Chile

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre, Minister of Finance from the Republic of Chile, is within the precincts of this Chamber with the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.

His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre, accompanied by the Acting Prime Minister, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging, Australia

Mr SPEAKER: I also have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Trish Worth, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging, Australia, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.

Minister of Agriculture, Australia

Mr SPEAKER: Finally, I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Bob Cameron, Minister of Agriculture, from the state of Victoria, Australia, is present in the gallery, and I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003 to be extended to 13 February 2004.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the date by which the Commerce Committee must finally report the Shop Trading Hours (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004, and for the date by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Immigration, Minister—Border Control

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: In 208 weeks as Minister of Immigration, is she satisfied she has in place sufficient checks and investigative systems to ensure people are not abusing New Zealand’s entry and exit laws?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): Not entirely, because there is always room for improvement. However, I am satisfied that the checks and investigative systems in place today are far more stringent than they were in the 208 weeks before I became Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now that the Minister has had time to be briefed on the case I raised yesterday pertaining to Adele Erisnas, a South African working as a nanny with an expired work permit, having married Mr Quban Khel, an Afghan taxi driver, at a registry office in Auckland at 11 a.m. last Wednesday—clearly a case of marriage of convenience—will she tell this House what she has done about this case, and thousands upon thousands of overstayers who are staying in this country abusing our system of Government; is she going to do something about it at last, or just allow this abuse to go on in the name of the New Zealand people?

Mr SPEAKER: There were four questions there. Two can be answered.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Raising a case in Parliament does not actually absolve an individual of his or her responsibility to get permission from the individual to breach the provisions of the Privacy Act, but because such a disservice has been done to this individual I have decided to reveal to the House that she has a work permit valid to 31 January next year. The member should get his facts right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us why on earth this person’s work permit was extended, given the fact that we are not short of people who can act as nannies in this country and we have tens and tens of thousands of people unemployed; why on earth was this person allowed to come here, and stay here?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: All I have done on this occasion is to establish that the advice the member gave to the House yesterday was inaccurate. He alleged that she was an overstayer; she is not.

Marc Alexander: In 208 weeks as the Minister of Immigration, is the Minister satisfied she has ensured that people are not abusing New Zealand’s entry and exit laws, compared with her predecessors, particularly the Minister who tried to bend the rules and allow a group of Chinese immigrants to buy their way into the country—New Zealand First MP, Tuariki Delamere?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: While there is a point of order I will not have any comment at all, or people will be leaving.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that the case about which the member speaks related to a person who was not a New Zealand First MP. The member should get his facts right or he will be stopped in his tracks if he seeks to abuse the Standing Orders. He was not a New Zealand First MP.

Mr SPEAKER: If there is any reflection on a member of the House, then of course it is out of order. Is this person currently a member of the House?

Marc Alexander: No.

Mr SPEAKER: The question can be answered.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Many more checks and balances have been put in place to ensure that cases such as the one described, relating to an individual Minister who entered Parliament as a member of the New Zealand First party, do not happen again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister also enlighten the House as to the status of the investigation into allegations that Tak Wo Kwan duped five Christchurch-based Chinese students into paying up to $100,000 each to gain permanent residency because he had friends who worked as immigration officers and immigration consultants; and how many more cases do we have to hear about before this Minister does something in respect of her portfolio responsibilities?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Again, the information that we were given in the House yesterday does not quite stack up with what we have discovered—that is, this man is facing charges, and no convictions have yet been entered. It would be inappropriate to comment on a case where no convictions have been entered, although I do note that he first visited New Zealand in 1998.

Rodney Hide: In light of her assurances to this House, has the Minister been briefed by the Immigration Service on the case of the Pakistani national who was caught in Fiji on a false Fijian passport, then, before appearing in court, absconded through Pakistan and Malaysia, to arrive at Auckland airport, this time on a false Malaysian passport, whereupon he claimed refugee status, was granted a certificate of identity and work permit, and then married a New Zealand citizen before the Refugee Appeals Authority could throw him out, in return for which our Government granted him permanent residence; if the Minister knows about this case, what details and explanation is she prepared to provide to the House?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think she is doing a proper job in respect of the tens of thousands of overstayers in this country, given that it is 2003 and we have a fully computerised system, or is sitting on her hands doing nothing her speciality?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I note that the overstaying rate has reduced of recent times. In fact, it was much higher when the member was the Deputy Prime Minister.

Rodney Hide: Will the Minister give us the assurance that if I provide her with the name of the Pakistani national privately, she will ask her department for the ministerial file that has been prepared on this case, and provide an explanation in the House next week of how this could happen?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Because of the claims that have been made, and the obligation I have to protect personal, private information, the undertaking I will give to the member is that if he does give me that information in confidence, I will ensure it is investigated, and will answer him to the best of my ability without breaching confidentiality.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth is she pleading the privacy rights of criminals and fraudsters who have come to this country in the way that Mr Hide has described, and as she has done in the past when we in New Zealand First have sent her information and have never ever had one report back from her?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I get very few letters from Mr Peters. In fact, the last letter I recall getting from him related to him asking for residence for an English-speaking lawyer who did not want to practise as a lawyer in New Zealand—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No such case has been brought to that Minister’s attention by me.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, the member did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, the woman I talk about is sick.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is entering into debate. Please be seated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a matter of debate. She is required to answer the question, and to be terse, to the point, and relevant. She is not being relevant now. Perhaps the Minister could table the case in front of the House now.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that the Minister was addressing the question asked by the member, and the member then interrupted her.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very interested in the answer. The member said that his party has sent some letters, they had not been answered, and the Minister was recalling to us the last letter she could recall getting. We were just getting to the interesting part about an English-speaking lawyer who did not want to practise law. I sort of empathise with that, and I want to know what was coming next.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was giving her version of the correspondence she had received. The question was about correspondence. She was entitled to answer in the way she did.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding from the exchange is that the leader of New Zealand First has given his assurance to the House that that letter was not sent. My understanding of Speakers’ rulings is that when a member says that, his or her word must be accepted. Rather than you ruling out the point of order, your normal course in these cases has been to say that the member has said that that did not occur, and we have to accept the member’s word.

Mr SPEAKER: Of course we accept the member’s word, which was said after the comments of the Minister. I accept her word. I accept the Minister’s word.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Either there is such a letter, or there is not. If you accept her word, you are saying that my word, because I gave it first, is not to be believed. Perhaps you could ask the Minister to find the file and table it now. Stop being a dreamer!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. Is that clear?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is on his final warning, and I mean that. As far as I am concerned, I accept the word of every member of Parliament. If there is a dispute, that dispute is covered either in debate or by one member acknowledging that a mistake has been made. Once I start not accepting the word of a member of Parliament, then we get into pretty serious trouble.

Drugs—P Epidemic

2. PAUL ADAMS (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied that current laws governing the supply and possession of drugs are adequate to combat the rising P epidemic; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice), on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, the Labour-Progressive coalition Government this year reclassified methamphetamine as a Class A drug under the current law. The penalty for supply of the drug is a maximum of life imprisonment. The Government has also taken out a range of other actions to combat the use of P. Of course, there will always be more to do. I assure the member that this coalition Government is moving through its methamphetamine action plan, and further announcements are to be expected.

Paul Adams: Does the Minister concede that present measures aimed at halting the rising P epidemic are a manifest failure, given a North Shore social policy impact report that shows that P is now available to students while at school in most locations of the North Shore, and that dealers are targeting kids by waiting outside schools and offering first-time users a free hit; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is too long, but the member had come to the end as I rose.

Hon RICK BARKER: Of course it is a reprehensible act to tempt people to use drugs. There has to be a two-pronged approach. The first is to reduce supply, and the Government is doing its best on that. The second is to reduce demand and show people there is an alternative to a drug life.

Martin Gallagher: What action has the Government taken in response to evidence of increased methamphetamine use?

Hon RICK BARKER: Just yesterday the Government announced an increase in penalties for the unlicensed importation of methamphetamine precursors—now up to 8 years in jail. The Government has invested another $2 million in the Customs Service and $6 million for police. Cabinet has agreed to lower the presumption of P for supply, from 56 grams to 5 grams. This will give the police the ability to prosecute more suppliers of the illicit drug.

Richard Worth: Why does the Government not consider banning the sale of pseudoephedrine-based products from chemists in order to cut off the supply of precursors to methamphetamine manufacturers from this source, particularly when there are effective non-pseudoephedrine drugs for cold and flu diseases available in the market?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am aware that a number of chemists in Gisborne have taken that action. It is a very good proposal and I am sure the Government will look at it further. But I make the point to the member that there is a whole range of precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine—not just that source. If we attack one area and leave others open, the floodgates will open in the other direction. This Government takes the matter very seriously and we are going to take even tougher action.

Peter Brown: If the Government is serious about its concerns about drug use, when is it going to do something about people who drive cars whilst under the influence of P, cannabis, and suchlike?

Mr SPEAKER: That is wide of the original question, but the Minister may comment.

Hon RICK BARKER: That is more a question for the Minister of Transport, but I would make a brief comment to the effect that some substances are very difficult to detect by a test. The technologies are improving, and, as they continue to improve, I am sure the Government will consider bringing in laws to make use of them.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of this stated commitment to fighting the rising P epidemic, is the Minister working closely with the Minister of Police on this issue, and, if so, are the two police teams that are trained in the clean-up of methamphetamine laboratories—announced by the Government in mid-May—up and running yet; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: I assure that member and the House that I do work closely with the Minister of Police. The Customs Service works closely with the Minister of Police, and the Ministry of Justice does as well. But I am not familiar enough with the police portfolio to answer the member’s question specifically. I suggest she put down a question to the Minister of Police.

Paul Adams: In light of the fact that gangs control 95 percent of the distribution of P—the drug that is ruining the lives of too many North Shore teenagers—and in the face of the obvious failure of the present statute, will he introduce legislation to give effect to United Future’s gang-busting initiative that confiscates gang assets and laboratories; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do not know of a law yet that prevents people from committing a crime. People commit crimes. We make laws to make sure they do not. [Interruption] The second point is that the member makes reference to the Proceeds of Crime Act, and the Government is looking at that matter very closely.

Paul Adams: Referring to my last question, why is it that children’s rights can prevail over the rights of sex offenders who receive post-imprisonment electronic monitoring, yet the rights of teenagers, schools, and communities to be free from gang-propagated P-fuelled violence continue to get ignored because the Government is too concerned about a gang’s right to hold property?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as that question concerns the original question, the Minister may answer briefly.

Hon RICK BARKER: All I can say is the assertion behind that question is complete and utter rubbish. This Government is concerned about the use of P, it is concerned about people’s rights, and it is concerned about the welfare of its citizens. I reject every sentiment behind that question.

Foreshore and Seabed—Te Ope Mana a Tai Proposals

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Has she been informed of the report in this morning’s New Zealand Herald which asserts that Te Ope Mana a Tai met with Hon Dr Michael Cullen 2 weeks ago and “appeared to be in agreement”, but “he had later told the group Cabinet colleagues railroaded him when they knocked back a paper he had taken to them on the issue”; if so, what were the proposals knocked back by Cabinet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister is aware of the general tenor of the article, and is also aware that it is wrong.

Gerry Brownlee: If the assertions are wrong, is she aware that at a 4 December meeting with Te Ope Mana a Tai, Dr Cullen did tell them that the Government proposes to settle the seabed and foreshore issue by issuing customary title, which will be available to recognise mana whenua as well as specific use rights; and is this a change in her position of full public ownership as stated in August?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes and no.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Prime Minister give the House a simple assurance that the proposals that the Government is considering will advance, equally and without prejudice, the interests of all New Zealanders, and that no new or exclusive rights that are not otherwise provided for will be created for any category of New Zealanders when these proposals are finalised?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can give that assurance. Indeed, for the vast majority of the population there will be no change from the position as it is at the present time.

Hon Ken Shirley: Why does the Prime Minister not simply front up to the Parliament and the people of New Zealand, stating clearly the Government’s foreshore and seabed policy, instead of engaging with meetings of self-selecting interested parties at the risk of being accused of duplicity by giving different messages to the different parties?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At this minute, she is on a plane and it makes it difficult for her to front up to Parliament. It has actually been the Deputy Prime Minister’s job to have these meetings, not the Prime Minister’s.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was put down to the Prime Minister; the Deputy Prime Minister in this instance is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. He cannot just dismiss the question saying the Prime Minister is not here; therefore he will not answer it properly.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has a certain point there. I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister just to expand a bit on his answer.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am the Acting Prime Minister, and not speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister has been having these meetings, not the Prime Minister having them and not fronting up to Parliament.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is now an occasion of the silly semantics that give Parliament a bad name. Mr Cullen is getting up and saying: “I am Acting Prime Minister”, then referring to “the Deputy Prime Minister”—as if he were two different people. As Acting Prime Minister, why does he not tell Parliament what the foreshore policy is, then he would not be accused of being duplicitous?

Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way: if that had been the question, then he would have had to answer it. I understood him to say that at this moment he is the Acting Prime Minister, which is correct. However, he then said that the Prime Minister was not having the meetings, but that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the member, Dr Cullen, was having them. I could understand that perfectly.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That will not do at all. If he is the Acting Prime Minister, then he is the Prime Minister. So when Mr Shirley gets up and says: “Why doesn’t the Prime Minister do X or Y?”, he is clearly referring to Dr Cullen, and Dr Cullen ought to answer why he is prepared to tell all sorts of self-selected groups what the Government’s policy is, but is not prepared to tell this Parliament.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a question I would be happy to answer, but it was not the question. If the member would like to ask that question, I would be happy to give an answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon Ken Shirley could restate his question with the information we have just received.

Hon Ken Shirley: Why does the Acting Prime Minister, who has been meeting with self-selecting interested parties around the country, not front up to Parliament and tell it and the people of New Zealand what his Government’s policy is? Then he would not be accused of duplicity by giving different messages to different audiences.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not giving different messages to any audience. I look forward to meeting with Federated Farmers, which has finally had the courtesy to ring my office and ask for a meeting, and telling it exactly the same message. What the member is ignoring, if he cares to listen—[Interruption] I have the microphone, so I can go louder—is that the policy is not yet finalised. I have been discussing proposals with a variety of groups to get their feedback. I do not propose to discuss the matter with members opposite, because they show no inclination to engage seriously on the issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Acting Prime Minister—or whatever he calls himself now—why it is better to talk to everybody outside Parliament, rather than people inside Parliament and inside this Chamber; second, why has he asked other parties to join an ad hoc select committee if the last comment he made is remotely true?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because it is a function of this Parliament that all parties are represented on select committees according to their proportionality. We could, in fact, have sent bills to select committees that that member’s party is not represented on. I shall be happy to discuss the proposals with members when they are finalised. I will be discussing the proposals with some parties before they are finalised.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I ask whether the question is to the Acting Prime Minister, or to the Prime Minister, as it was set down. The last two questions have been asked of the Acting Prime Minister and answered in the first person by that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: It is to the Prime Minister.

Gerry Brownlee: Secondly, I seek leave for there to be a debate immediately following question time, so that parties on this side of the House can voice their opinion on this matter, since we note that the Government intends making its announcement once Parliament has shut down for the year.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have a debate. Is there any objection? There is.

Gerry Brownlee: At the 4 December meeting with Te Ope Mana a Tai, did the Prime Minister understand that Dr Michael Cullen, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and the Hon John Tamihere agreed with each other that mana whenua title would translate into iwi, hapū, or whānau having full authority over the seabed and foreshore specified in their customary title?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Gerry Brownlee: Noting the series of points that were presented to that meeting, would the Prime Minister agree with the Hon John Tamihere that, in his view, a development proposal in an area covered by customary title, with as low a level of interest as ingress or egress across the relevant area, would result, effectively, in that iwi, hapū, or whānau having complete control over whether the project could progress or a consent be issued?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will have to wait for full details of the proposals when they are finalised on Monday. They have yet to be finalised.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that this is an issue that concerns the whole of New Zealand and all representatives of New Zealanders, who sit in this House, I again seek leave for the House to have a debate immediately following question time, so that it might discuss this matter before Parliament is shut down for the year.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have that debate. Is there any objection? There is.

Patient Treatment—Decision Making

4. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree that decisions about which treatment is most appropriate for particular patients are best made by their doctors in consultation with the patients themselves; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Generally, yes—provided the decisions made are based on best medical practice, taking into account the patient’s diagnosis and the suitability of treatments available. I would also expect that any medicines that might form part of that treatment would meet current international standards in respect of quality, safety, and effectiveness.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of survey results indicating that one in 10 doctors has a patient he or she believes might benefit from medicinal cannabis; and given that cannabis is the only effective relief for a number of people with conditions such as chronic pain and nausea, why does she continue to deny doctors the ability to make cannabis available to their patients?

Hon ANNETTE KING: For cannabis to be proved as a medicine, it would have to have a status under the Medicines Act. It would therefore need to have a standardised dose, it would need to be safe, and it would need to have therapeutic efficacy. Unfortunately, we do not have that as yet. However, in trials in the UK a lot of work has been done on a pill that may be of use. My understanding is that the member would like people to be allowed to smoke cannabis. That certainly would not be a medicinal use of that product.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen the most recent report from the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand and the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, and I suspect that most members of this House have. From all the evidence available, those organisations conclude that the risks of smoking cannabis are similar to those of smoking tobacco, and they recommend that public health education should include the message that the respiratory effects of smoking cannabis are similar to those of smoking tobacco. Why would we want to inflict that on New Zealanders as a medicinal way of treating anything?

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of comments by Paul Smith, professor of pharmacology at Otago University, that the Government is ignoring decades of international research on the medicinal use of cannabis, and that cannabis-derived drugs are already being widely used overseas; is she aware that there are many methods of administration that do not include smoking, which are all equally unavailable to patients who have the support of a doctor to use cannabis; and can she confirm her answer to a written question of 2 March 2001 that she considered no studies on the effectiveness of cannabis as a medicine when deciding applications for the use of cannabis as a medicine?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, that was the advice in 2001. Subsequently, the United Kingdom has undertaken trials on cannabis in the particular form of a pill—not in the form of smoking or eating, but in the form of a proper medicine. Those trials are due to be completed very soon, and when they are, the Government will certainly look at the use of such a medicine.

Nandor Tanczos: Will the Minister tell the House what public health good is achieved by 14 police officers raiding the house of a man who has been a tetraplegic for 28 years, in order to bust him, naked in bed, for using cannabis with the full knowledge of his doctor and specialist; and will she personally explain to Mr Leo Danger—sitting in his wheelchair in the public gallery today—why she continues to deny him effective pain relief?

Hon ANNETTE KING: When there is a suitable medicinal product for that particular person, then the Government will certainly consider it. But at this stage, I do not consider that smoking cannabis would be good for that person’s health. I have just released the report from the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation, in which the effects of cannabis are shown to be very similar to those of tobacco. In fact, we have higher levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in New Zealand than we ever suspected.

Sue Kedgley: Would the Minister rather that Mr Danger continues to take a cocktail of 20 prescribed pills every day, including morphine and valium, to alleviate his suffering, rather than take cannabis—with, for example, a vaporiser—which he finds more effective, with fewer side effects, and takes with the full knowledge and consent of his doctor and specialist?

Hon ANNETTE KING: What the particular person whom members are talking about does with his doctor, obviously he does with his doctor. This Parliament has not approved the use of cannabis in a medicinal way. I do not believe that members would want me to approve that until we know it is a safe product to use.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a letter dated 22 November, written to the Minister of Immigration, attaching a document pointing out that someone has come to this country, falsifying his name by taking the name of his brother who is a qualified lawyer in Dakar, but he is not. I ask her to do something about it for a change.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Early Childhood Education—Participation

5. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to increase participation in early childhood education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): This Government is investing $8 million to create more than 1,200 new places for children in early childhood education centres. Seventy-two community-based non-profit early childhood services will receive this funding to establish new centres, extend buildings, or remove health and safety hazards.

Hon Brian Donnelly: When there are waiting lists for some of our early childhood providers and many children cannot attend early childhood education centres, why is it that if a visitor to New Zealand enrols his or her child at any early childhood institution, the Government will fund that child at the full rate, regardless of citizenship status?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not quite so concerned about the citizenship status. I think residency is a question, and given the very good representations—

Hon Brian Donnelly: Non-residents.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think we even have a few non-citizens around this place every now and again. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about residence status, and we are doing a funding review. Given the very good representations the member has made, that will be included in it.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that half of all children who receive subsidies for early childhood education attend privately owned centres, and why are privately owned centres excluded from this scheme, thus excluding those children who attend them?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I cannot confirm the numbers—

Hon Bill English: You should know them.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I cannot confirm the numbers, because the member is again making mistakes. Again, he just cannot count.

Hon Bill English: 57 percent.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, the member does not understand the difference between community and private early childhood education centres. [Interruption] He has it wrong again. [Interruption] But the key point is—

Mr SPEAKER: For a start, the member interjected three times in the second person, which involves me. He knows that is out of order. I now want the Minister to come to the answer concisely.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In that answer, as with every answer he has given, this particular Minister chose to make insulting comments about the questioner, rather than answer the question. I ask you to ensure that Ministers answer the question, rather than, as this Minister repeatedly does, get into a personal attack on the member concerned.

Mr SPEAKER: It would have been made very much easier for me to do that if the questioner had not been involving me in his interjections. But I take the member’s point—the Minister will now come to the answer.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In answering the member’s question, I point out that his numbers are inaccurate. Secondly, it is not the role of the Government to provide capital—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise. Twice now he has involved me by way of the two interjections he has made.

Hon Bill English: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister always answers questions by saying that the questioner does not know what he or she is talking about. In this case, he now says that I did not know the numbers, when the first thing he said was that he did not know the numbers. If you are going to allow him to do that every time I ask a question, you can expect consistent disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: If I get that sort of comment again from the member, he will be leaving the Chamber. I am not having that sort of nonsense at all. The member started his answer by saying that the member was inaccurate. He is perfectly entitled to make that statement. That was the first thing he said in his answer, after I had upheld the point of order of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I want the Minister now to answer the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No disrespect to you, but that is not how the Minister started his answer. He started his answer—some time before Dr Smith took his point of order—with a direct personal attack upon the questioner. You must accept that this is not the first day that we have brought up the issue of Mr Mallard’s style as Minister. It might be perfectly acceptable for the Labour Government to present a Minister of Education as he chooses to present himself, but all we want is direct answers to questions—not personal attacks upon people who, apparently, have no right to ask him those questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I upheld Dr Smith’s point of view. I did uphold his point of order. I said to the Minister: “Please answer the question.” He then started by saying: “I will.”—or words to that effect—“The member is not accurate.” There is nothing out of order in that particular sentence. I have already ruled on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is with a sense of déjà vu that we have heard that ruling as well. Earlier today the Minister of Immigration got up here and said that the most recent correspondence concerned a series of circumstances. I have just tabled the proof that that is not true—dated 22 November. When is she going to get up and table the evidence of what she said, and for which you admonished me when I criticised her?

Mr SPEAKER: That is up to the Minister. It is not up to me.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is very much to the point of order in the House. How can you expect order to be maintained when Ministers can behave as Lianne Dalziel has today, and as Trevor Mallard is behaving now? In the case of Mr Peters’ question, there was clearly a total misleading of the House in the answer that was given. In the case of Mr Mallard, there was a deliberate design to antagonise the questioner. If this sort of behaviour continues, then it can only be expected that Opposition members, who are required to provide significant backup and authority to the questions they submit, will become disorderly.

Mr SPEAKER: There are two different issues—the one raised by Mr Peters, which is very different from the other question. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 129/3 of 1992: “The Speaker has no jurisdiction to determine whether the answer to a question is correct.” As far as the second point of order is concerned, I ruled in favour of the member raising it. I now come to the Minister—he is to give his answer specifically and without any personal comments.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not the policy of this Government to provide State funding for the capital portion of private businesses.

Helen Duncan: Can the Minister tell the House why this Government believes that increasing participation in quality early childhood education is vitally important?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is very important. A lot of research shows that the particular benefits go to those people who are most likely to miss out in education—Māori, Pacific Island people, and those who live in rural areas.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I seek the leave of the House to table an answer to a written question that demonstrates that the Government’s policy is to fully fund every child in early childhood centres, regardless of the residence or non-residence status of the parents.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Policy

6. Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill she introduced last week represents “a good balance of practical and realistic measures that will strengthen the Act and further promote positive employment relationships”; if so, why?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour): Yes—practical because it builds on the successes of the Act, such as the Mediation Service, and realistic because it recognises that employment relationships are about people working together to achieve common goals.

Hon Roger Sowry: Given that the proposed changes overturn much of the current case law covering good-faith bargaining, redundancies, and dismissals, how does she believe the bill will add value to employment relationships?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I do not accept the member’s contention that they overturn case law. In fact, I refer him to the Baguley case, and also to the INL case, where the court has suggested clarifications that have been made in the legislation.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Employment Relations Act of 2000 succeeded in meeting its objectives?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: In large part it has achieved its objectives, especially in promoting a cost-efficient, peaceful resolution of disputes. It did, however—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect to the questioner, this question relates in only the vaguest way to the question first answered. The question that is set down as a primary question, which the Opposition wants information on, is about the amendment bill soon to come before the House. How can a diatribe on the agreed, or otherwise, success of the Employment Relations Act be included here? Surely it is a debating matter.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The principal question refers to strengthening the Act. The Act referred to is the Employment Relations Act.

Mr SPEAKER: My ruling on the point of order is that it is about how the principal Act is to be strengthened. The supplementary question was wide, but it was within the scope of the original question.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: As I was saying, in large part the Employment Relations Act did succeed in achieving its objectives. However, it did not—and this addresses the amendment bill—address the issue of vulnerable employees, which comprises the substantive changes in the employment relations amendment legislation.

Peter Brown: If the Minister wants the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill to provide “a good balance of practical and realistic measures” which will “promote positive employment relationships”, why does she not support a group of individuals—as opposed to a union—having the right to negotiate a collective agreement, as is the case in Australia; is it because she believes New Zealanders are inferior?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Never, and I think that is obvious—except on the rugby field, of course.

Opposition Members: Oh!

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Netball is another question, of course.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We win the women’s rugby.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes, we certainly win women’s rugby and netball. But the point is that the honourable member raises issues as to the organisation of employees and workplaces. Traditionally that has been done in the form of the legal notion of a union, and there seems no point in changing that at this stage.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister assure nurses and other health workers that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will not prevent nursing and medical staff from taking industrial action next year in support of fair pay; if not, why not?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The purpose of the provision relating to the health sector was to ensure that patient and public safety is maintained. That was the objective during a strike or a lockout. It was not to prevent the strike or lockout itself, but to look after patient safety.

Paul Adams: How will the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill promote positive employment relationships when, in certain circumstances, employers taking over a business will have to inherit workers they do not want?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Government considers that skilled employees are in fact an asset of the business and, just as plant, capital, and goodwill are seen as assets, so should employees be seen as assets. So we do not see that in this instance it will be a detriment.

Hon Richard Prebble: How can the Minister describe the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill as “a good balance of practical and realistic measures” when 90 percent of private sector employees are not in a union and will be discriminated against, because under the bill collective bargaining, which can be done only by a union, requires an employer to reach a settlement, but with an individual contract, which 90 percent of New Zealanders are in, there is no such requirement—where is the balance in that?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The balance is that individuals have a choice as to whether they have a collective agreement or an individual agreement.

Hon Roger Sowry: Will the Government be providing direction on the meaning of “fair and reasonable” in relation to dismissals, including redundancies, or is it now the Government’s intention that the courts be left to substitute their business judgment for that of business managers?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Government has heard the request of employers not to have prescriptive legislation but to ensure it applies to their particular circumstances, and that is what that provision is directed to take account of.

Hon Roger Sowry: Is it the Government’s intention that employees be permitted to gather at any time with their union representative without fear of disciplinary action or deductions from pay, thus enabling the potential disruption of business without reasonable cause; if not, what limitations will be placed on those meetings under this new legislation?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The amendment does not change the existing provisions in the legislation.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is clearly an answer the Minister may wish to reconsider, because there is a clause in the legislation that does exactly that—changes it. I see now that the Minister is acknowledging that. I wonder whether she will reconsider her answer.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It does not change the legislation. It clarifies that if a delegate—[Interruption] I have said all along that this is an amendment about clarification, and the clarification is that if a union official drops in to address an issue for an individual employee, that visit is not considered to be one of the legitimate stopwork meetings in terms of the Act. Some employers have interpreted it that way. Therefore, we needed clarification.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister’s clarification of her original answer, I wonder now whether she could address the question, which was quite clear. It was: is it the Government’s intention that employees be permitted to gather at any time with their union representative without fear of disciplinary action or deductions from pay, thus enabling the potential disruption of business without reasonable cause; if not, what are the limitations?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Obviously not.

Resource Consents—Process

7. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for the Environment: What has the Government done to reduce the costs and improve the processes associated with applying for resource consents?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Many things. Most significantly, we have put $5.6 million into the Environment Court since 2001. This has enabled the Environment Court to hear cases more quickly, reducing both the delay in reaching resource consent decisions and the associated compliance costs. The Environment Court is now disposing of more cases than are being lodged, and has already halved the backlog it inherited when this Government came into office.

David Benson-Pope: What evidence is the Minister able to provide the House that increasing the Environment Court’s resources is reducing the amount of delay in resource consent hearings?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Digital evidence recording has resulted in a 50 percent time saving on hearing days for the Tongariro power station case currently under way. This new way of recording evidence is a world first, and, according to judicial officers quoted in the Dominion Post on Monday, is the biggest advance they have seen in 20 years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If the Environment Court is doing so well in advancing hearings, why has she introduced a draconian bill to this House that exempts only the Waitaki River from its plan being appealed to the Environment Court; is it because the Waitaki River is viewed by this Government as of lesser environmental importance than others, or why do we not have the same rules for all rivers in this country?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there. The Minister may comment on two.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: When the member reads the legislation he will find out that the process inside the first hearing of either setting up their allocation plan or making the decisions is one that is more interrogative than adversarial.

Larry Baldock: Given the progress that has been made in the Environment Court as a result of additional resourcing, does the Minister have any plans to seek further additional resourcing in order to continue to speed up the process?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes. Over the next 2 financial years an additional $3 million will be available to update the court’s information technology systems, enhance case management processes, provide additional hearing days, provide training for Environment Court commissioners—for instance, in mediation services—and provide digital evidence recording systems.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table clause 32 of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, which states that it cannot be appealed to the Environment Court for its plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): In respect of the tabling of a letter of 22 November from one Allison Jones of the office of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I seek leave to table the reply dated 3 December stating that we were unable to locate any trace of a person by the name applying to enter New Zealand.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to me, dated 7 May 2003, bringing to my attention the plight of two young British people who, although he had not known them personally, he thought would make excellent New Zealand residents and would bring skills and assets of benefit to our country.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I seek leave to table my reply of 3 June explaining that that would require an exception to Government residence policy.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is.

Interest Rates—Banks

8. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s view on the recent trading bank interest rate rises, and what action, if any, is the Government going to take?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Interest rate rises are bad news for borrowers and good news for lenders. The Government does not propose to revert to failed policies of the past such as interest rate controls. It will continue very prudent fiscal management, which is the best contribution it can make.

Hon Richard Prebble: Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that the Australian inflation rate is 1 percent higher than New Zealand’s, and interest rate rises in Australia are justified; but inflation is low in New Zealand, the Reserve Bank has chosen not to lift its interest rate, and would it not appear that the Australian managers of New Zealand trading banks are looking at the economy through Australian eyes; and is it not time the Reserve Bank required those trading banks to set up their own boards, like Westpac, so that they start to make decisions from a New Zealand viewpoint and not an Australian one?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A number of those banks do, but, of course, the bank that has led the charge towards trying to keep mortgage rates down is Kiwibank, whose creation the member opposed.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister concerned that rapidly rising house prices, and now increasing interest rates, will make homeownership even more difficult for many New Zealanders; if he is concerned about it, what will he do about it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is clearly a great deal of pressure in the domestic sector, including the building sector in particular. I am sure the member understands that the Government’s capacity to influence that is best done through a tight fiscal policy. Anything else, such as random tax cuts as proposed by members opposite, would lead to a loosening of fiscal policy and more upward pressure on interest rates.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Fees

9. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What decisions have been made on the new ACC levy rates this year?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): Excellent news for everyone, particularly for motorists and the self-employed: the average total levy for motor vehicles, including licensing fees and petrol excise duty, will fall by 6.8 percent. The average total self-employed levy will drop by 2.2 percent, while the total employers levy and the total earners levy will stay unchanged.

Dave Hereora: How do the new accident compensation levy rates compare with overseas rates?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Extraordinarily favourably. For example, in Australia average employer premium rates over the last 2 to 3 years range from A$1.55 to A$3.04 per A$100 payroll, compared with the accident compensation total employers’ levy of A$1.21. Despite Australia’s relatively high rates, its private insurance schemes have struggled to survive. Two major insurers have collapsed, including HIH, which was a major player under National’s privatised accident compensation scheme.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a very misleading statement by the Minister and inappropriate in the answer. The reality is that not one New Zealand accident compensation claimant was affected by that failure.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.

Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill—Project Aqua

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: How does she reconcile her statement in the House last Thursday that “This bill, which we have before us this week, will not be about fast tracking any proposals.” with her press statements on 2 September 2003 saying: “The legislation will also reduce time delays associated with appeals”; on 22 October 2003: “It is important that the process which requires legislative change, occurs as quickly as possible.”; and on 3 December 2003 saying the bill is needed to achieve “expedient” decisions?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Easily. The legislation is about a time-bound process to develop a water allocation plan. It is not about favouring one proposal and moving it ahead of others.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would the Minister explain to the House the difference between the words “reducing delays”, “expedient”, “ensuring the process is as quick as possible”, and “fast track”, or is the only difference Government spin?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I repeat that I think the member confuses process with the outcome. This Government makes no prediction about the outcome and, therefore, no prediction that the process is there to serve a certain outcome.

Mark Peck: What has been the local reaction to the legislation?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: It has been welcomed, as was made clear to me yesterday when I met local government representatives from the four consenting councils in Waimate.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If the bill is not about fast tracking a favoured Government project, will the Minister consider giving up some of the extreme powers the bill gives her to hire and fire all the decision makers for both the water allocation process and the decisions on consents?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The bill is about to go before a select committee, and I imagine that those finer points can be taken up in there. The question of hiring and firing does not necessarily concern the people who are appointed to the panels.

Gerrard Eckhoff: What is the Minister’s reaction to yesterday’s Otago Daily Times editorial on the proposed legislation where comments such as: “the Government seems intent on rewriting its own script.”, “the Government, working through Environment Minister Marian Hobbs, is hell-bent on getting Project Aqua up and running before the next election.”, and finally, “This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It cannot be condoned.”; and what is her reaction to that conservative newspaper’s comments?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Furious, and I replied as such.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If the Minister claims that the bill is not about fast tracking, can she explain why clause 32 states that the Waitaki River plan cannot be appealed to the Environment Court—and that river is the only river in which that would be the case—and why clauses 49, 51, and 52 automatically give priority to fixtures before the Environment Court, severely limit the access of evidence, and put extra constraints on time; if that is not fast tracking, can she tell me what would be?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I have always said, and said quite clearly in statements that have been quoted by that member, that we are about moving the process expeditiously. We are not about fast tracking one particular proposal. Reference to the hearing process in the clauses referred to by that member—which is different in this legislation—encourages the inquisitorial as opposed to the adversarial, and this lessens the need for appeal on fact rather than on process.

Mark Peck: Does the legislation give the Minister any decision-making powers over the use of Waitaki water?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No. The decisions will be made by an independent, expert statutory board and panel of commissioners, nominations for which I am seeking from the community.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister describe the board and the panel of commissioners as independent, when she appoints them, the chair, and the deputy—they serve solely at her pleasure—and she can fire them at any time for any reason; and is this not about as independent as a Robert Mugabe judicial appointment?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Many appointments are made to many boards in this country by this Government. We seek people with a requisite range of skills. It is the manner in which they act, and who makes the final decision. That decision will be made by that board and is appealable to the courts, not to the Minister.

Gangs—Public Protection

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First), on behalf of RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: In light of recent gang activity in Highbury, Wairoa, and Otaki, is he satisfied that current laws are sufficient to protect the public?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport), on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Generally yes, but we can always do better.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think it is a sad state of affairs that innocent women need to leave their own country and their families, because this Government has made it too dangerous for them to stay in this country, but when in Opposition for over 9 years Labour said it would “crush the gangs” but it has done nothing?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Firstly, it is unacceptable for gangs to intimidate people in the way the member describes. There is no question about that. However, it is not fair to say that nothing has been done. Law changes have been introduced and the police have been given extra resources. For example, new laws have been passed to crack down on participation in criminal gangs, and powers of investigation and interception have been beefed up. I am advised the Minister proposes further law changes to ensure the better targeting of criminal assets.

Darren Hughes: What has been the effect of the Government’s changes to the law on participation in a criminal gang?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Under section 98A of the Crimes Act, amended through the Transnational Organised Crime Bill last year, participation in a criminal gang is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. This law applies equally to patched members, prospects, or associates. The new law is increasingly being used to prosecute gang members—with 16 prosecutions taken in the first 6 months of this year, compared with two for each of the previous 2 years.

Richard Worth: Does the Minister agree that only by taking the profit out of crime will criminal gangs be stopped from the large-scale drug dealing—especially methamphetamine—that has enriched, empowered, and entrenched them in New Zealand, and if he does, and with reference to an earlier answer he gave, when will meaningful asset-seizure legislation proposals be put before Parliament?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I agree it is one measure that could crack down on gangs. It is, of course, not the only measure, but it is one, and I agree with the member that it is an important one. I know that the Minister has proposed law changes, but I am not aware of exactly when he intends to introduce those. I suggest the member put down a direct question to him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister doing anything at all, when we have the taxpayer having to foot the bill of over $460,000, since 2000, to relocate abroad, from this country, battered women and their families, because this Government has simply done nothing about the intimidation by these gangs, and when will he stop talking and do something?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not think it is fair to say the Government has done nothing. The Minister of Justice has been very, very diligent in improving not only the law and order portfolio but increasing the laws that oppose gangs and their activities.

Algerian Asylum Seeker—Security Intelligence Service Inquiry

12. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: Will the Government be holding an inquiry into the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service’s handling of the Zaoui case in light of the loss of part of a videotape interview and the subsequent discovery of an audio tape of the interview with Mr Zaoui; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service): The Rt Hon Helen Clark will be receiving a full briefing on this issue when she returns from overseas, and no further comment will be made until she has had that briefing.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister accept that the credibility of the Security Intelligence Service has been seriously dented by the lost and found audio tapes and the fact that Mr Zaoui was interviewed and videotaped without his knowledge and consent, and without his lawyer being allowed to be present?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, no further comment will be made until the Prime Minister, on her return, has received a full briefing.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House there will be no governmental interference in the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Justice Greig, in his review of the national security certificate issued in respect of Ahmed Zaoui?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Absolutely, and I welcome the member’s support for that, when the Government is under so much pressure from a number of quarters asking it to intervene in that process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why are we going to so much trouble and so much expense—probably now $200,000—in this case of a person who left Malaysia and falsified his entry into this country, in terms of documentation; how many Muslim countries did he bypass on the way to a supposedly Christian country?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the answer to the latter part of the question is one, if I have my geography right—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Algeria to here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thought the member said from Malaysia to New Zealand—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was the last one.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Or rather a lot from Algeria. Whether or not the member likes it, New Zealand is a country of the rule of law, and the process will be followed without Government interference.

Keith Locke: Given that Parliament is not allowed to scrutinise adequately the SIS, what steps is she taking, as the responsible Minister, to make sure the SIS is not so careless or devious with the use of its videotapes, audio tapes, and who knows what else?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not accept the member’s accusation of deviousness. Certainly there appears to have been some carelessness, but, as I said, the Prime Minister will be receiving a full briefing when she returns from overseas late this evening.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In replying to three of these questions, the Minister answering for the Prime Minister has said that he cannot answer the question because the Prime Minister will get a full briefing when she returns. This question was on the Order Paper. Surely the Minister should have been briefed to act as the Prime Minister and answer the questions adequately.

Mr SPEAKER: No, because the answer the Minister gave was very specific that there will be a full briefing when the Prime Minister returns. I presume after that briefing, questions can be raised with her. The member has a final supplementary question if he wants one.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that the inspector-general should consider Mr Zaoui’s rights, particularly in the light of Cabinet papers establishing the inspector-general’s position, which explicitly state that his role shall be to ensure that the activities of the SIS “are consistent with human rights”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government will not comment on the way in which the inspector-general undertakes his statutory duties.

General Debates

General Debates

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Looking back over the past year at achievements by this politically correct apology for a Government, we can only say that never before in the history of this once-great country have so many done so little, so often, for so few. [Interruption] Whom did I plagiarise that from? Well, not from Rod Donald. He is no wordsmith. He has a big mouth, but he is no wordsmith. Labour, once a great party of social and economic justice, has been taken over by a collection of creatures from a political “Middle Earth” nightmare. This is a Government that is banal, bent, and full of weirdoes who deal in slogans, jingles, and clichés.

Hon John Tamihere: Look in the mirror.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, that is not my habit. That is the member’s habit—not mine.

Real New Zealanders have become increasingly cynical about and disbelieving in the political process under this Government. No better is that illustrated than at question time in this House. There is no Western democracy where there is so little accountability, where Ministers think question time is a joke, and where they do their utmost to evade simple answers.

Government Member: That’s not right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wrote to the Minister of Immigration in what she claimed was the most recent correspondence—the operative word being “recent”—on 22 November. She wrote back and said that she had no idea of the fraudster I mentioned, even though his brother, an LLB from Dakar, says that he is here. The brother may know that—and he knows the friends and relations—but, of course, the Minister does not know that, and nor does her department. She boasted yesterday of catching eight people because of the department’s new early-warning system. That is eight out of how many? Well, 190,000 people came here last year, all up, and of that number, in 4 months the department has found eight. The Minister is boasting about it.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s 2 million.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, she cannot say that. Those are tourists and visitors. The people down there in the ship right now are part of the 2 million people, but I am talking about the 190,000 that go into our register.

Hon Judith Tizard: So they have marks on their heads, have they?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no. What an excited laugh that member has. It is a bit of a give-away, really. I cannot tell members what I think it is, but it is a give-away.

This Government is a bizarre group of political misfits—and there are no “Mr Fits”, just “Miss Fits”—who have decided that New Zealand women aged 18 can become prostitutes, but that they cannot have a smoke! To combat teenage drinking, those no-hopers increased the price of port and sherry for the elderly. They have brought in tens of thousands of people from the Third World and from all over the world, and planted them in Auckland. Then we have a Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. What has she done for Auckland? That must be the country’s best-kept secret. I ask members to name just one little thing that she has done for Auckland. Nothing! There is not a sound from over there on the Government benches. The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues has done nothing for Auckland. The Government brings in all these tens of thousands of people—40,000 in 2002—parks them in Auckland, and then claims it will get on top of Auckland’s roading problems. What a joke that is! The Government imposes laws by stealth. It pleads the United Nations.

Ahmed Zaoui should never have arrived here; that has cost $200,000 now. He will be in prison for a long, long time. He was not turned around—and the Minister says she cannot tell us about him, because the privacy laws prevent her from doing so.

The Government has inflicted this country with an epidemic of political correctness, which has created men out of women and women out of men. Now women can become fathers. There must be a biological advance I am not aware of, but women now can become fathers. The hardest job in our future will be to train boys to become men. There is no accountability in this House. There is nothing but spin all the time—vituperation, tirades, and no facts. [Interruption] Lianne Dalziel is giving a speech by way of interjection. Why will she not get up and defend herself?

Opposition Member: She should resign.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, she should resign. She is incompetent. She is the worst Minister of Immigration any Western nation has ever had.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): What a historic day this is in the development of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Today Australia and New Zealand signed an agreement to establish a joint agency to regulate medicines and therapeutic products. It is significant that a treaty has been signed this year—the 20th anniversary of the establishment of closer economic relations. This joint regulator is the culmination of many years of hard work.

Today I would like to congratulate all those who have been involved in this 9-year process of bringing together a joint regulator. I congratulate the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, who in 1996 signed the first agreement that we would go into a joint regulator. I congratulate the Hon Neil Kirton, who in 1997 then continued the process of setting up the joint regulator. I congratulate Bill English, who from 1997 through to 1999 was involved in the setting up of the joint regulator. I congratulate Wyatt Creech, who in 1999 pushed it even further. Finally, I congratulate Georgina te Heuheu, who was also one of those who signed the last document in terms of setting up a joint regulator. That work was done over those years.

When I became Minister in 1999, I looked at the work that had been done by the previous coalition Government of New Zealand First and National, and we decided that we would agree in principle to a joint regulator. I announced in October 2000 that the Government was committed to such an agency. In November 2002, I again affirmed that the Government had decided to continue with a joint regulator.

Today is a blue-ribbon day. However, I happen to know that the Australians are rather disappointed in the National Party, and the Minister has said that she intends to have a little chat with National Party members as to why they are not taking some credit for the work that has been done and why they are not looking seriously at our trans-Tasman relationship. This is the final part of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement, which was never finished. We have had an exemption for those products since 1998, and every year we have had to go back to get a further exemption. So it is a very blue-ribbon day today. I am very pleased that we have signed the treaty.

The joint regulator will protect the public from harm and ensure there is safety, quality, and efficiency.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It sells out our country.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It stops friends of Winston Peters from selling products that contain arsenic, grass clippings, and those sorts of things—something he does not care about.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A member cannot get up and claim that friends of a member of Parliament are selling arsenic, though I know where it would be most properly used. A member cannot say that. She should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I did withdraw and apologise. The idea of the joint regulator is to ensure that complementary medicines, pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices reach the highest standard before they are given to the public of New Zealand. There may be members opposite who do not think it is very important to have strong regulations around the sale of products containing grass clippings, which people claim will fix someone’s prostate problem. There are those who sell products containing arsenic and say the products are good for people; who sell products containing Viagra but do not say that, thus people do not know they are taking Viagra; who put mercury into products—

Simon Power: You might find out.

Hon ANNETTE KING: That may well be of benefit to the member opposite. In fact, I recommend it to him. However, that is not what this Government or previous Governments—including the Government that Winston Peters was in—supports.

Today, as I said, is a blue-ribbon day, a red-letter day, or whatever one wants to call it. We are very pleased to have signed the treaty and to now allow the legislation to be prepared for the establishment of that joint regulator.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It won’t get passed.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I predict that it will pass, when people see what is involved and start to listen to the arguments.

I also ask what the reaction has been. I would like to share with the House the reaction of the New Zealand Medical Association, which put out a statement today that it makes considerable sense for such regulations to be consistent with our Australian counterparts, particularly for reasons of cost-effectiveness and of introducing higher standards. It supports what this Government and previous Governments have worked towards.

The thing that really disappoints me is that ACT put out a statement that we ought to have mutual recognition, but that was rejected in ACT’s own report.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Last week, the Government made a very big mistake. UMR Insight polled a person in this complex, on behalf of the Prime Minister’s poll-driven leadership. That exposes what is really going on on the ninth floor. Ministers should watch their backs, because the Prime Minister is conducting polls on them. Questions in the poll included: “How do you rate the performance of Michael Cullen, Annette King, Phil Goff, and Trevor Mallard?” Pete Hodgson was noticeably absent. More important, when the Government pollsters polled on Parekura Horomia, the question asked how his performance was and another asked about John Tamihere.

What is going on in the Prime Minister’s mind? The poll was also very revealing about the Government’s worries. It contained questions such as: “Is the country becoming too politically correct?” We could answer that question for the Prime Minister. Yes, it is. “Is the Government guilty of telling you what to think?” Yes, it is. There is no question about that. Here is one for the Rt Hon Winston Peters. “Is the Government too soft on immigration?”. Other questions include: “Are there adequate police numbers?”, and: “Do you approve of the Government’s handling of the foreshore?”

I say to members opposite that they should look out over the Christmas break. Their Prime Minister is polling them. Tellingly, one of the questions was: “Has the Government’s listening to Māori complaints gone too far?”. This Government is polling on every little issue. “Is there too much focus on Māori issues, to the detriment of the mainstream?” [Interruption] The chief whip can chip in, but the Prime Minister is polling and the Government is scared. That is not political leadership. Leadership is creative. It is about charting a course. It is about mobilising people behind a clear set of principles. It is underpinned by good judgment, I say to the Prime Minister, not by the latest polling data. Leadership means making tough choices, not pandering to poll-driven, fleeting prejudices. It involves character, and it involves leading public opinion on difficult policy problems facing the nation. I tell the Prime Minister that leadership is not about polling techniques.

This Prime Minister is a follower, not a leader. This says that Helen Clark has only very rigid control, and very little else, to offer us. This Prime Minister cannot even consider a Cabinet reshuffle without seeking poll information on members of her own front bench. It says a great deal about Helen Clark’s leadership that, having gained the people’s fragile trust, she has done so little with it. Is Helen Clark leading on the foreshore and seabed debate? No, she is not. In fact, where is Helen Clark on matters relating to race relations in this country? I will tell members where she is; she is sitting on the ninth floor pouring over polling data, trying to get the answer right and trying to see whether poll results show her that John Tamihere would be a more popular Minister of Māori Affairs than Parekura Horomia. That is not leadership; that is a cynical manipulation of public opinion. It is political management devoid of vision, and it is limited only by the Prime Minister’s narrow and selfish ambition to try to break records for longevity in office.

This Prime Minister is no Dick Seddon. She is no Peter Fraser, and she is not even a Rob Muldoon. She does not belong in their company, I say to members of this House, because her approach to leadership is to ask poll respondents for their advice on how to lead. That is not leadership. Dick Seddon led public opinion; this Prime Minister just follows it. Peter Fraser had principles; this Prime Minister has only her polls—and her number is up.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): It is high time that those who live off the earnings of criminal activities are made accountable, not only for the crimes they are charged with but for the onus of proof that their property has been lawfully obtained. If they cannot do that, then properties should be confiscated and the proceeds distributed back to the communities the criminals preyed on. It seems to me that we are getting nothing more than platitudes about getting tough on crime and getting tough on P. What the Government is doing is simply not enough. [Interruption]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear the member.

MARC ALEXANDER: Those members are not listening to the wise words here, Madam Speaker.

The drug P is a scourge upon this country, and this Government is doing precious little about it. The Government talks about education and about platitudes, but it does not get to the heart of the problem. It is a namby-pamby Government that is still trying to understand the problem let alone find decent solutions to protect the people of this country. Meanwhile, legislation introduced in Western Australia in 2001 has enabled authorities to confiscate all the assets of gangs, which are the primary producers and distributors of the drug P. The result has been to shift the burden of proof to members and associates of those gangs, and, in effect, to hit them in their wallets.

In this country, gangs manufacture 95 percent of the drug P yet we are sitting around on the edges not being able to do very much about it. We need to take account of how the Western Australians have approached this problem, which is to introduce something along the lines of a criminal organisation and gang property confiscation bill. Such legislation shifts the onus completely on to the gangs to prove that all their property has been lawfully obtained. It means that for once the good citizens of this country—our law-abiding citizens—do not now have to try to prove the illegality of the assets those gangs have. The onus will be reversed and it will be the gangs that will have to prove legality, in return. It makes sense. People talk about that as contravening the right of presumption of innocence. Why is it that the innocent are supposed to be the ones who play by the one-sided rules—rules that bend over backwards to protect the offenders and the purveyors of misery through the drug culture, particularly with something like P?

Recently the drug P has been blamed for an upsurge in domestic violence that has led to a shortage of space in women’s refuges. It is a drug associated with a huge amount of violence, and today I am reminded of the Coral Burrows case, in which the drug P was directly involved. According to the national alcohol and drug helpline, from 2002 to 2003 methamphetamine calls went up by 3,000 percent compared with cannabis calls, which just doubled. This is a scourge we must grasp before it takes hold of New Zealand and of New Zealand youth. Assets would be frozen until the State could confirm that, in the absence of proof of lawful acquisition and on the balance of probabilities, the resources of a gang or member of a gang were the result of criminal activity. At that point—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish? I think the member wrote it himself.

MARC ALEXANDER: Certainly, it was nobody who came through an educational establishment under that Minister. Under his ministership, educational standards have gone absolutely out the window. It is time he went back to school. He should go back to private education and start learning himself.

I come back to my point. Assets would be confiscated, to do some good and be returned to the community from which they have been stolen. If we want to reclaim our streets, our future, and our kids we need to give the police the tools to do the job. This Government has absconded from that responsibility. It will not give the police the tools they need. It will not resource them in terms of police numbers. It will not resource them in terms of the kind of legislation they need so they can go after gangs. It seems that it is always the innocent and law-abiding who have to suffer. It should not happen any more. It is time to take the gloves off and treat criminal organisations with the only weapon that will do the job—that is, take away their ill-gotten gains. It is a kind of warfare we must wage.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): In this last general debate of the year there is one question: who owns the beaches?

When we sit here on this side of the House, we hear confusion, we hear chaos, and we do not get answers. Not once has the Government given a clear answer to the public of New Zealand, through Parliament, about who owns the beaches. The reality is, the Government is in a shambles. It is in a complete mess on this issue. It cannot satisfy its Māori caucus and it cannot assure other New Zealanders that they will be able to go to the beaches this summer. No wonder there is trepidation. There is confusion, and that is why protest movements are being mounted right now that will stop New Zealanders from going on to beaches. That is the simple proposition. It is a marked contrast to the 1990s, when National had to deal with difficult issues around those kinds of things. But did we have this kind of delay? Did we have months and months of speculation? No, we had solutions; that was the difference. The Labour Government goes by polls; we went by solutions in the 1990s.

It will surprise the House to know that the Government cannot even guarantee Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore. Yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister promised New Zealanders back in August last year. It is now just before Christmas 2003, and New Zealanders are still waiting for the answer. What did we hear today? Oh, no, the Government is talking about proposals yet to be finalised. No wonder it is accused of duplicity. That is what is happening. But some things are clear. We have heard what Minister Tamihere has said. Ministers have said to Te Ope Mana a Tai that there can be manu whenua customary title. The reality is—because the law books say so—that customary title is the equivalent of a fee simple title.

So the Government has to answer these key questions today: will the manu whenua customary title—because it has already agreed to it, apparently—include full development rights? Maybe Mr Samuels can answer this: will those full development rights lead to the exclusive use and control of the seabed, the foreshore, and the beaches? If that is the case, the Government will not be able to deliver on its commitment to full public access. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot give to Māori exclusive customary mana whenua title, equivalent to fee simple, and at the same time guarantee full public access. That is a simple proposition that has been asked. The Minister on his feet right now, Mr Tamihere, could take the next call and tell the House which of those two propositions is true.

We would ask the Government to guarantee Crown ownership. Instead, it looks as though the Government will repeal section 9A of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act. The reason I say that is because section 9A of that Act states that all land that is foreshore and seabed “shall be land of the Crown”. That is a simple proposition that guarantees everyone access. It benefits every single New Zealander, no matter what his or her ethnicity is. Instead, the Minister said yesterday that it is simply “deemed” to be land of the Crown. I do not know how it can be more specific than the words “shall be land of the Crown”. Why on earth would we use concepts like “public domain” to replace a clear idea of Crown ownership that has been well understood for hundreds of years?

The Government has now raised this proposition of the subdivision of the beaches, foreshore, and seabed amongst various claimants—and there are hundreds of them in the wider community.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): It is very interesting to note that during this general debate in the House the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, has stayed silent. And well might he stay silent, because when the National Party leaves at the end of this year to go on a summer holiday and, over the barbecue, look at the year of 2003, it will look in retrospect and see what it managed to achieve.

National started out the year slumped in the polls, and it is still there. It changed the leadership, woke up the next morning after it had done so, and said: “Oh dear, what have we done? We’re still slumped in the polls.” It is now competing with New Zealand First to retain the position of being the major Opposition party. National has no hope of winning in 2005. It changed the deputy leader—that was a big mistake, yet again—and the only good point to have come out of the year for National is that Bill English is finally looking as though he has a glimpse of the X factor. The dumb part of that is: the party had just dumped him as its leader.

The National Party has been dealt another blow, which came in a column in the Sunday Star-Times as a result of the book New Zealand Votes: the 2002 General Election. Jonathan Milne said: “The glory days are all in the past for the National Party. That is a conclusion drawn from an eight-year $1 million-plus study into how New Zealand politics has changed …” Nigel Roberts told the columnist: “I would say it means that National, for the first time, has to start pushing water uphill … I think we’re seeing the potential for a significant long-term change.” Mr Nigel Roberts has it exactly right.

The change started, in actual fact, in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a fundamental shift in New Zealand politics. The National Party led New Zealand into war in Vietnam; the Labour Party brought the troops home. The National Party was prepared to sell New Zealanders’ bodies for sheep exports. National failed New Zealand. We have an echo of this today in the war in Iraq. National wanted New Zealand to join the United States of America in the war in Iraq; Labour said it did not because it supported internationalism and international institutions like the United Nations. The rest of New Zealand agrees with the Labour position; the National Party again finds itself on the wrong side of the political void.

Labour supports a nuclear-free New Zealand; National embraced it, but unwillingly. Again, that policy started to shift in the 1960s and 1970s, but National was locked into a 1950s values set. The same values held by the National Party saw it invite the Springboks to New Zealand; again, Labour was opposed to that. The same set of narrow values the National Party clings to sees it being very negative towards our indigenous people, the Māori of New Zealand. National wants to abolish Māori seats; Labour supports them. Labour is a positive, inclusive party; National is exclusive. The National Party wants to abolish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs; Labour says that is not a good policy and we want to have all our people doing well.

Another policy that shows the great divide in New Zealand is National’s embrace of a right-wing orthodoxy from the United States concerning work for the dole. Labour says we need to encourage people into work positively. When Labour came to power in 1999, there were 138,000 people registered on the unemployment benefit. There are now 88,000 people—a huge improvement. It shows the difference between a positive policy and a negative policy. The National Party has negative policies and is a punitive party; Labour supports positive policies for positive change.

National wants to take other leaps back into the past. National, led by Don Brash, wants to recommence asset sales; Labour says that asset sales are finished—in fact, we have built a new bank. Labour wants to progress things for working people and we are legislating for 4 weeks’ annual leave; Don Brash’s team wants to take annual leave off working people. National offers New Zealand old values. That is what this survey has found, and there is a huge divide.

Labour is looking to the future. Labour is looking to an inclusive society. Labour is looking to promote the things that make New Zealand a much better place. We want to promote our indigenous culture and say: “This is who we are as a people.” We want to be good citizens on the world stage and do the right thing by the United Nations and other institutions.

The National Party wants to follow those values that led New Zealand down through the paths of the cold war and into Vietnam. The National Party is locked in the past, and over the Christmas holidays it will be searching to discover how it can find a way to make old-fashioned, 1950s policies and attitudes attractive to New Zealand—or how it can jump the divide and follow Labour into building a positive and inclusive society.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens oppose the Government’s current school network review process. A number of our members have been involved with many of the communities that are affected by network reviews and, in a few cases, there has been some agreement that it is appropriate for schools to close. It is true that some schools are failing, and without intervention and support they will simply flounder until they do—inevitably—close. On a case by case basis, school closures are a normal part of the administration of the Ministry of Education, but this current process is not normal. It is not done on a case by case basis. It affects not only those schools that need to close for sound educational reasons but also those schools with growing rolls, community support, and excellent Education Review Office reports. Such schools are also under threat of closure in this process.

This process is a full-scale, purposeful attempt to rationalise all schools, in order to extract from those closures money that will eventually be put towards the consolidated account. Through this process the community, parents, and children who suffer this are promised a chance to contribute, but in the end their views, informed by knowledge of the children’s educational and social needs and by their experience of their wider communities, will not prevail over the ministry’s agenda.

The guiding principle for the Greens’ approach to network reviews and school closures is that children belong in their own communities. From this principle, the first issue to focus on is the quality of education for children. One of the criteria for quality education is access to education that is local and community-focused. Support for children in their own communities means that children know the people around them, children are known by name, and children feel secure in their environment and confident that the place is their place.

Another guiding principle for the Greens is that the proposed changes are analysed in terms of community development. We want to ensure that the infrastructure of communities is maintained as part of our support for regional areas. Keeping integrity with regional development is absolutely crucial if we want to build economic and social viability in regional areas and relieve cities of the increased pressure on infrastructure from increased population growth. There must be good services for families in rural and regional areas, as part of a national strategy for viable communities in all parts of Aotearoa New Zealand. Dynamic communities, in economic, social, and cultural terms, are to be the expectation of city people, rural people, and those in more isolated communities alike. Regional development means commitment to all communities. It involves recognition of the contributions to national life from regional sectors, with a commitment to maintaining opportunities for enterprises that are in jeopardy where the weight of resources is available only in the cities.

The Greens consider that schools are a community resource, and we believe that an assessment of community resources must be part of any school closure process. Schools tend to be a focus for communities and foster social cohesion and shared activities. School classrooms are used for lots of different community activities—adult education, libraries, and information rooms. It is precisely this cooperative approach to schools that creates the cohesive community. For some in rural areas the school is the best resource in their community. It is a centre for children, for families, for local health and sporting interests, for community groups and services, and for informal networks.

The priority must be the provision of a high-quality education for our children, but communities have been told by ministry officials that although educational outcomes are a priority, the network reviews are about responding to changing demographics, which means responding to falling rolls in schools. It is therefore possible that schools with excellent Education Review Office reports and growing rolls are to be closed. Existing professional relationships between teachers within a community are undermined in the restructuring, leading to an extended period of uncertainty in a school, which adds unnecessary stress.

The Minister has said that falling rolls make this full-scale process necessary, but many parents and educators have noted that falling rolls bring opportunities for reduced class sizes, which are educationally beneficial. There have been calls for reduced class sizes for years. Although there are increasing numbers of teachers, class sizes are not reducing. But the ministry also recognises there are increased numbers of children with learning difficulties who could benefit from just a little extra attention to their specific needs. Reduced class sizes would have a huge impact on relieving teacher workloads, enabling better class management and providing some individual time for each child. Those are good things, which this Minister should be promoting, but, instead, he is fuelling existing disparities.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Although I want to talk about the environment, as a former educationalist I cannot resist speaking about education. To hear that last speaker not equate high quality and falling rolls seems to me absolutely duplicitous. It is good to have small classrooms, but if there is nil subject choice, then the school is not offering anything to those children. I can only think of the children in one of the smallest secondary departments of an area school in New Zealand—halfway between Blenheim and Nelson—who wrote to me the other day. They would rather pay for private transport to get them to bigger schools with subject choice than be confined in a secondary school with only 26 students. That is the sort of issue being faced. That is what they mean about quality. To denigrate that and say that that is somehow demographics and not unpick what demographics means is, to my mind, dishonest debating.

But I want to concentrate a little on something that the Labour-Progressive Government, which is a good, strong Government, has been clear on this year. It has been clear on the direction and leadership it has shown on the environment. It has shown a strong, clear leadership—unlike the confused and contradictory utterances from ACT and National, which I will come to. I turn to a little of our record this year. The Ministry for the Environment’s job is to clean up the mistakes of the past. I turn to an area near the electorate of the Opposition spokesperson for the environment, namely Mapua. This is a horrible site where an agrichemical factory once was, and where the chemicals leach out into the estuary. For years nothing was done, but now, as of the passing of the resource consents, the ministry is on its way to do the first part of a major clean-up that may cost as much as $9 million. This Government is prepared to work with local government to achieve that.

But we do not leave it there—we go to Lake Taupo. Land around Lake Taupo opened up in the 1960s, when a certain former Prime Minister drove a road down the western side of the lake and opened up an extraordinary amount of land to agriculture. The agriculture and farming that have gone on that land have contributed to the growth of nitrate and the lessening of clarity inside that particular lake. If we left it for 40 years, we would be looking at a Rotorua lakes problem. We would have lost one of our great assets, yet we are out there working with Environment Waikato, working with the farmers, working with Ngāti Tuwharetoa, working with the Taupo District Council, and with money—an uneven amount again—from central Government, to support a way to reverse the decline.

It goes again for the Rotorua lakes, which for years had a disgusting habit of disposing of sewage straight on to the bottom of the lakes. They did change that, and they did it with the help of previous Governments, but they did not do a helluva good job. We are now having to work to try to find some instant ways, as well as some long-term ways, of cleaning it up. What did the National Party members do about that? When they campaigned at the last election in 2002, they wanted a royal commission on the question. What did Labour do? Labour got in there, boots and all, worked with local government, and put up the money. It is in there, getting some solutions. There is no royal commission here—we got in there and delivered on it.

We have been showing leadership in waste strategy. We have been working out there with the sectors, working out with the tyre mountains that my good colleague always brings me from Hamilton. A number of other issues are out there. We have put up funds—millions of dollars—for biodiversity on private land. We recognise that farmers do care about that land and want to make some changes to it.

In the hazardous substances Act, and in the work that we did there this year, we had guts. Yes, public pressure was out there. Yes, there were polls, but on that occasion we set up a royal commission—on a divided subject—to listen to people. When it said “proceed with caution”, that is exactly what we did. That is leadership. We have ensured that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is fit to deliver the answers and the advice. We have shown good, firm leadership. We did not play political games and shift votes at the last moment because we thought the issue was just a little bit hot. We had some guts.

Are we caring about the future? You bet we are. We hold youth environment forums, and I get letters back from kids, saying: “I am revved up and wanting to go. I actually want to engage in these issues.” This is not about cuddling furry bears. This is out there; it is about cleaning up lakes. But what does the National Party do, and how confusing does it get?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): Earlier this year the Minister of Education told the House that he believed that it was morally reprehensible and probably illegal for teachers to be paid additional salary for having foreign fee-paying students in their classrooms. I agree with him. We have teachers who have to integrate new immigrants into their classrooms, and they do not get any extra pay for that. We have teachers who have to include special-needs students in their classrooms, and they do not get any extra pay for that, so why should teachers who have foreign fee-paying students?

But the same applies to principals. Some principals are very good at tapping into discretionary grants. Do they get any extra pay for bringing additional revenue into their schools? No. Some principals are good fundraisers. Do they get extra salary for the extra revenue they bring into their schools? No, but I want to tell this House that there is one group that does get extra pay, that gets bonuses, over and above what they are paid to look after the interests of the New Zealand students in their schools. That group is the principals who have managed to recruit high numbers of foreign fee-paying students—and it is with the blessing and the encouragement of this Government.

This is how the scheme works: boards of trustees can write to the Ministry of Education and ask it to make an additional payment to their principal. New Zealand First asked some questions around this particular issue. The questions we asked were: “How many boards of trustees of secondary schools have requested approval to pay their principals an additional emolument because of the additional workload created by foreign fee-paying students in 2001, 2002, and 2003?” We went on to ask how many requests had been approved for each year. The answers were enlightening. In 2001, 10 requests were received and eight were approved. In 2002, 38 requests were received and 33 were approved, and in 2003, 51 requests were received and 38 were approved. Thirty-eight principals get bonuses for recruiting high numbers of foreign fee-paying students.

They do not get any bonuses for getting high academic standards in their schools—no bonuses are allowed for that. They do not get any bonuses, for example, for closing the gaps—they are not allowed to get bonuses for that. But they are allowed to get bonuses for recruiting high numbers of foreign fee-paying students, and that is where all the incentives are within our schools. The Government is encouraging the process, and hordes of principals leave these shores each year on recruitment drives—all funded out of boards of trustees’ money—to recruit as many foreign fee-paying students as they can.

We cannot blame the boards. Each student can be worth as much as $10,000 to the school, and when there are 200 or 300 of them, that turns into a fairly large amount of money. But there are many secondary schools in areas such as Kaitaia that do not have the capacity to attract foreign fee-paying students, so the resources they have available to their students are far, far fewer. If students can be fitted into already existing classes, there is no extra cost at all to the school. The only extra cost is upon the teacher, and the teacher does not get any additional payment.

This is a tawdry affair. Principals are paid by the taxpayer to look after the interests of New Zealand students in their schools, not the interests of foreign fee-paying students. If they claim that foreign fee-paying students provide much-needed resources, that is fine. But why are they being paid extra for doing it? That is their job. It is a principal’s job to maximise the resources within the school.

If they claim that foreign fee-paying students add additional experience of other cultures to New Zealand students, why are we allowing foreign students to be enrolled in such numbers that they do not need to intermingle or be immersed? It defeats the very purpose of them coming into New Zealand schools. Surely that is not the appropriate course of action to take. There is no limitation upon the number or proportion of students who can come into our schools. The other reality that makes a mockery of that claim is that this Government’s immigration policy ensures that New Zealand students have plenty of exposure to peers of different nationalities, ethnicities, and languages—particularly if the students live in Auckland.

Does this Government allow bonuses to be paid to a principal for inspired educational leadership? The Minister is there, so I ask him whether boards of trustees can say: “Look, we have got a brilliant principal here, he has done a wonderful job, can we pay him a bonus?” The answer is no. Is a board able to do that if, for example, it can demonstrate that the principal’s leadership is leading to very high levels of academic achievement? The answer is no.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): It is wonderful to speak in the general debate, particularly at this time of the year. It is the last general debate for this session of Parliament, so on a personal level I express season’s greetings and felicitations to all members of the House. It is a time of year, of course, when one reflects on things that have occurred throughout the year. On a personal level I say to National Party members that I understand the angst they have experienced, particularly towards the latter part of this year. The beginning of the year was a bit lacklustre as well, but it fared a little better than what they have since experienced. But we will tarry on that a little later.

The Government can reflect on a pretty solid year and a very good year. It is one in which we cannot bask in any kind of glory, but one in which we know that we have delivered consistently, since we came into Government in 1999, on the commitments we said we would deliver on, and we have improved upon them in this second term leading the Government of this country.

We have a leadership that is enviable. It is envied, not only by other parties in this House I dare say, but also by people overseas. I can testify to that being the truth. When I have travelled on some international trips there has been a respect for Helen Clark in the international arena for her forthrightness and for leading a stable Government. Some have actually expressed the wish that she was their Prime Minister. I believe that is an endorsement that would be envied by the leader of any party in this House.

But as we reflect upon the year that the National Party has enjoyed, or otherwise, one can only admire the courage and stickability of National members. They are scratching their way towards the end of the year. They have had, as I have mentioned before, a turbulent time. They have had leadership problems that no one else has had, except possibly the Labour Party, which in the far distant past went through the similar angst that National is going through. So who did National members choose after they dumped Bill English? It was the wonderfully effervescent and charismatic Don Brash. He is the right honourable leader of the National Party, but even that coup was dithery. They dithered and faltered and could not get the roll-out of the leadership coup over to the public or even amongst themselves. I understand that there were National Party members running around like headless chooks wondering who was the leader that day and, more important, who was deputy leader at all, at one time. In the last little while they have been through something like six deputy leaders in as many years. It has been quite a lot.

As to the leader, people had to drink coffee profusely at a New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry meeting up in Auckland some time ago. They were falling asleep, and that is a shame. Then, at that wonderful world event the premiere of The Lord of the Rings, which has been supported superbly by this Government, I cast my eyes around and looked at the leader of the National Party and his beautiful and wonderful wife wandering around looking lost. Nobody could quite recognise who they were or whether, indeed, they were sitting in the right theatre. They had been packed off to the Reading theatre, not the Embassy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He didn’t want to sit next to Heather.

GEORGINA BEYER: He did not want to sit next to Heather Simpson. I understand now, it is all clear. The leader of the National Party likens himself to a lifeless puppet—an effigy that has recently been erected at the Back Bencher Pub and Cafe, just across the road. It is a lifeless puppet. Of course, one has to ask whether it is a puppet operated by string or a hand puppet. If it is a hand puppet, we could forgive the Leader of the Opposition, when reflecting upon this year, for thinking that it has indeed been an annus horribilis.

HEATHER ROY (ACT): The Minister of Health stood up before to gloat over the signing today of the Australia - New Zealand joint agency agreement. She was gloating, in her anti-business way, over the fact that she will be responsible for driving small businesses manufacturing dietary supplements, out of business. She asked in the speech she made in this House what she has achieved. Well, I can tell members what she has achieved by ignoring the Health Committee inquiry into dietary supplements and complementary medicines, and including those products in the joint agency.

I have in front of me some products that are safe and popular. They are available to New Zealanders now, but they are not available in Australia. The products are: Joint Care with MSM, which is not available in Australia; Immunofort, with specific vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbs, which is not available in Australia; Desiccated Liver, which is not available in Australia but which is very good for us; and Enzyme Complex. It is very interesting that the Minister of Health said yesterday that garlic was excluded. Of course, there is a very good reason for that—Government members need garlic to drive the vampires away! I also have some multivitamins, minerals, and selenium products that are available here but not in Australia.

Selenium is deficient in the soils of the South Island, and, if the Government has its way, people will not be able to supplement their diet with selenium from tablets, either. People from the South Island, like Clayton Cosgrove, will be left to join the sheep at the salt lick to get their selenium supplies.

Annette King thinks that the products I have here are dangerous products. She thinks they are so dangerous that they must be subject to the toughest regulations in the world—those of the Australians. Well, I am not afraid of these products and I am happy to prove it. I am from the South Island and I do not mind taking the selenium tablet that I have here.

Lindsay Tisch: How was it?

HEATHER ROY: It went down great. Sixty-six percent of New Zealanders are like me and are not afraid to take these products, either. They think that we do not need the tough regulations that the Australians are going to impose on these very safe products.

So are these products really dangerous? I have here a chart that one of the submitters, who has subsequently been ignored by the Minister of Health and this arrogant Labour Government, presented to us at the select committee. It lists the fatalities in New Zealand. They are: deaths caused by cancers—7,582; adverse drug reactions from prescription medications—1,524, and it is right and proper they should be subject to very rigorous scrutiny; traffic accidents—531; food—an estimated 75, and that is ordinary food not food supplements; working for the Government—2.5 deaths. That is very interesting. No one told me when I came to Parliament that I was in danger of losing my life, and quite where the remaining 0.5 of a life goes is anybody’s guess. Perhaps the Labour members might stand and tell us how they will cause that. But, interestingly, natural health-care and therapeutic products have been responsible for, surprise, surprise, no deaths—none at all.

This Government has committed this country to require that these safe and popular products be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I have here another product Boost. It contains folic acid, which has been shown to prevent spina bifida. I am not afraid of this one, either; let us have some of that. The recorded decrease in the number of babies born with spinal defects is thought to be the result of an increased number of women taking folate in the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, folate has been so beneficial it has been suggested that bread should be fortified, but there is a bit of a hold up at the Ministry of Health. Under the proposed legislation this type of bread would have to be rigorously tested to ensure that it meets the highest standards of scrutiny. The cost, of course, would be high. But it is often the case that when a country embraces socialism, in the way this Labour Government has, that bread ends up being rationed. Indeed, it is a logical extension of the current Government’s lurch towards a centrally planned everything that every citizen’s dietary requirements will have to be passed by this Labour Cabinet.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Yesterday in this House I was much maligned. I returned to my office after question time to hear some random, ranting Tory—

Simon Power: Random is a bit much!

MOANA MACKEY: True—telling mistruths about my activities in a select committee I do not belong to. So I came down to the House to defend myself against that, not actually knowing who had said it. Now I could be excused for looking at the usual suspects—Mr Simon Power and Mr John Key—but after I had made my point I was informed it was actually the Hon Roger Sowry who had made those vicious comments, and it all came clear. Mr Sowry is the most bitter man in the National Party—unlucky No. 13—a man who accused me of reading New Idea, which is ironic given that he has a lifetime subscription to “No Idea”. It surprises me that Mr Sowry even has time to notice what goes on in his select committee, given that his nose is constantly stuck in the situations vacant column of all the newspapers in this country. I ask Mr Sowry not to come begging to me for a reference, particularly regarding his observation skills.

The trans-Tasman ratings have been causing a bit of conversation amongst MPs this week. People have been debating the various rankings people got, and whether they deserved them. But the one thing everyone agrees on is the comment on the abilities of National’s dumped deputy. What did it say? It said he deserved his demotion.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which one?

MOANA MACKEY: Roger Sowry—he deserved his demotion. He is unpleasant, ineffective, and a career as a shoe salesman beckons. He is unpleasant and ineffective. Well, I can certainly concur with the first part of that statement, and my colleague Darren Hughes and the voters of Otaki can certainly concur with the second part. But, to be fair, it cannot be easy for him to lose to someone half his age—someone who was not even at high school when he first came to Parliament.

That is symptomatic of the National Party’s wider problem when it comes to young voters. The party is outdated. While the Labour Party is selecting and electing young candidates into Parliament, National is making Don Brash its leader.

The Government’s achievements for young New Zealanders are significant and speak for themselves. We are committed to the goal of ensuring that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be engaged in education, training, or work—leading them to financial independence. We have already reached our target of 6,000 Modern Apprenticeships. We piloted the Gateway programme, which is now in 62 schools around this country. We have introduced the primary health strategy so that all 6 to 17-year-olds who are enrolled are now eligible for low-cost health care.

We have replaced the draconian Employment Contracts Act with the fairer Employment Relations Act. Young people all too often were faced with “take it or leave it” employment negotiations, and this Labour-led Government has rectified that problem. We have increased the minimum wage four times in 4 years. To make sure that all young New Zealanders can take part and participate, we have the lowest unemployment in 16 years.

We have made tertiary education more affordable. We have removed the interest from student loans while students are studying. Student loan debt forecasts are now down $2.6 billion, largely due to this Government’s policies. We are going to increase the eligibility for allowances. We froze fees and brought in fee maxima so that students now know that their fees will not increase by more than 5 percent each year, which is far better than the situation I faced in the 1990s when I was at university. We have introduced fees and loan help for secondary teachers and for health sector trainees, in the form of scholarships.

What did the National Party do? The National Party cut student support in the 1990s. It cut family support, and it cut health spending. What can we look forward to if the National Party is elected into Government with Don Brash as its leader? I say to all young New Zealanders that they can expect more cuts. They can expect to pay more for their tertiary education. They can expect to pay more for their health care. Young New Zealanders growing up in families close to the breadline can expect to face far greater pressures, and to have families who are not coping because of cuts in family support. The National Party that made those cuts in the 1990s is still saying it will make them again. That is the scary thing about this National Party; it has not changed its policies.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to challenge a point the previous speaker made about No. 13 being an unlucky number. Well, I can assure the member that 13 is not an unlucky number. I am here to prove it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, with an instruction to the committee to present its final report to the House by 15 March 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, 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 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

The bill amends the Resource Management Act to deal with significant competing proposals seeking to use the limited water resources of the Waitaki catchment, and provides a process whereby the merits of the various applications can be considered. As it stands, there is no regional water plan to guide the allocation of water in this catchment. In the absence of such a plan, the Resource Management Act alone cannot provide a good mechanism for determining what is the best use for the water—irrigation, hydroelectricity, or enhanced in-stream protection. Without this bill and the statutory board it establishes, the consent authorities, in order to devise the water allocation plan for the catchment, would have been considering and making decisions on the large number of resource consent applications in a policy vacuum.

This bill, and the processes it establishes, will ensure that environmental, social, economic, and cultural issues are addressed. It will also ensure that local, regional, and national issues are appropriately considered. The bill’s aim is to achieve a fair, prompt, and transparent decision-making process.

This bill applies only to the Waitaki catchment. We are working at pace to address water allocation issues under the sustainable development programme of action. However, it was obvious to us that the work would not be completed in time to address the very pressing issues of the Waitaki catchment.

The bill provides for the strategic allocation of water in the Waitaki catchment by setting up a two-stage process. An independent body, the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board, will develop a water allocation framework. The policy document prepared by this board will then provide the basis for decisions under the second stage, when a panel of commissioners will make decisions on the significant applications to use water. Some applications will be processed by councils in light of the policy framework developed by the board.

To those who accuse the Government of introducing this bill in order to promote certain projects—for example, Meridian Energy’s product, Project Aqua—read my lips: Project Aqua, like all the applications for Waitaki water, will stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act. For those who seek to make comparisons between this bill and the National Development Act Repeal Act concerning the Clyde Dam, I point out that the Government of the time overrode the decision of the planning tribunal, by legislating to ensure the dam went ahead. That is very different from this Waitaki bill.

We need more energy, but whether Project Aqua will proceed must be considered in light of its environmental, social, and economic effects at local as well as national level. The objective is an improved process. The Ministry of Economic Development has commissioned work to look at our energy situation with and without Project Aqua. That information will be presented to the statutory body and be available for anyone to submit to the board on. In respect of membership of the statutory board and panel of commissioners, I will be calling for nominations, and seeking to appoint high-calibre people with the appropriate range of expertise who can make an independent assessment.

This bill is not about reinventing the Resource Management Act. Tools and processes already exist within that Act, and they are used for this bill. The Resource Management Act sets out the matters that should be included in a regional plan—for example, issues, policies, and rules. It also establishes principles for managing a public resource like water, by providing for individual domestic needs, for example. Techniques such as allowing for transfer of water permits and reviewing conditions of consent are already contained in the Resource Management Act. The public will have the opportunity to submit to the board on the water allocation framework, and to the panel on the competing applications. The Government has also put aside some funds to assist those wishing to make submissions.

I reiterate that the bill’s aim is to achieve a fair, prompt, and transparent decision-making process. To facilitate that, the board’s decision will be open to appeal to the High Court on points of law. Given its specific function and expertise, it would be unusual for such a board to have its factual findings challenged. Decisions by the panel of commissioners will be appealable to the Environment Court. However, appellants will not be able to introduce new evidence at that stage.

Collectively, these changes to the Resource Management Act set up an enhanced process for making decisions on applications for the use of water in the Waitaki catchment—both in current proposals and for future uses. The bill responds to circumstances in the Waitaki that require Government intervention. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This bill is an abuse of process and an abuse of power. It is the Government writing the rules to suit itself. It is offensive to all those New Zealanders who believe there should be one rule for all, including this Government. That is why members of this National Opposition will oppose this bill.

Let us not pretend that this bill is about anything other than a huge strategic decision for New Zealand. It is about a $1.2 billion development—a development a third bigger than the Clyde Dam. It is the biggest hydro development in 30 years in this country and will take 73 percent of the water out of the Waitaki River. There are so many similarities between this bill and the Clyde Dam empowering bill. The only significant difference is that today we live in the age of spin. Let me get a few things straight for the Minister in terms of her misleading New Zealanders. She said the bill is not fast-track legislation. That sounds like another great DB advertisement: “Yeah right”. The Minister’s own press releases say this bill is necessary to reduce time delays. They say it has to occur as quickly as possible to expedite decision making. If that is not fast tracking, what on earth is?

The bill enables the Government’s own company, Meridian Energy, to bypass key sections of the Resource Management Act. Why is the water plan for the Waitaki River not going to be appealable to the Environment Court? Every other river in the country will be. What is more, clause 32 severely limits any appeals to the Environment Court. It is a Clayton’s appeal process. Similarly, the bill severely limits the Environment Court appeals on hydro developments in terms of their consents. The powers to strike out appeals are a lot wider, evidence is strictly limited, and the bill fast tracks any hearings. We then heard the Minister’s claim that the board and the commission are independent. It is laughable. The Resource Management Act requires that decisions are made by locally elected regional and district councillors accountable to their own communities. This bill states that all the decisions will be made by the Minister’s own appointments. The Minister appoints the chair and the deputy chair; and, to quote the bill, they “hold office at the pleasure of the Minister”. How does that differ from the Environment Court. The Environment Court is judicially independent. This is all about sycophants appointed by this Government to rush through Project Aqua.

We then come to the draconian provisions, which give carte blanche powers for the Minister to override the Resource Management Act. The bill states that the Minister and any part of the board’s process, or any part of the panel’s process, can completely override the Resource Management Act. The Minister will be given the power to override completely any element of process in respect of the Resource Management Act. That is nothing less than draconian. I want an explanation from Government members, who have vigorously defended the Resource Management Act and all its bureaucracy, then suddenly when it comes to the Government’s own project, it wants those sorts of powers to change the rules. What about the other 50,000 consents a year by small businesses, other New Zealanders, and competing energies companies? Why are the rules different?

National has been arguing for the reform of the Resource Management Act for years. We went blue in the face over the resource management amendment bill introduced in 1998, with our own special policy statement, fixing the Resource Management Act in 2001. At the beginning of this year we had our own special select committee, which specially looked at the issues of the Resource Management Act. Marian Hobbs and Labour said the Act was fine and did not need change. She said it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced. It seems it is beautifully balanced, except when it relates to the Government’s own project.

The Minister claims that this amendment bill is needed because there is no regional water plan for the Waitaki River. But she could direct the regional council to provide one in terms of the Act. She could fund the council to do so. She has been Minister for the Environment for 4 years. She claimed there is a policy vacuum. If there is a policy vacuum, it is the Minster’s own fault. She should have changed the law to require every council to have a plan for all of our major rivers, but she has not done so, and this bill does not do so.

There is a huge conflict of interest, because if Meridian Energy makes a buck out of Project Aqua it goes straight into the coffers of this Government. Therefore, the Government has a conflict of interest that it is abusing in this Parliament this afternoon. There is a very close parallel between this bill and the Clyde Dam bill of 1982, and the Government has learnt nothing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me tell Mr Mallard that the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Conservation Authority. [Interruption] Well, the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Planning Tribunal in 1980. But with the appeal rights, it then went to the High Court and was reconsidered. The only thing that is different, I tell Mr Mallard, who is trying to interject, is that the teaching is at the beginning of the process, rather than at the end. The Government should reform the Resource Management Act for all. [Interruption] That member has changed his tune. That member is in a Government of Helen Clark, Pete Hodgson, and Marian Hobbs, who cut their political teeth on opposing Sir Robert Muldoon with the Clyde Dam empowering bill, and now they have introduced their own bill. If members opposite—like the talkative member from the South Island—push through this bill at the fast pace they are proposing they will throw away—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that Trevor Mallard does not want to debate the issues.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The member will rise, withdraw, and apologise. That remark was not called for.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government will force this bill through on a fast-track timetable and report back in March. That is a dirty trick. The Government has brought this bill in just before Christmas, and thinks that the South Islanders are stupid and will let the Government get away with this. The arrogance of South Island members opposite will cost them support in the South Island. The people of the south will rise up against this bill and tell the Government that it should follow the rules that it sets for all. Members on this side of the House say the Resource Management Act should be reformed. We do need to have new energy generation, but whether it is the Dobson hydro scheme on the West Coast, the Pencarrow wind farm, or the new proposal on rivers and other parts of the country, there must be the same set of rules, whether or not they are Government companies or private companies. We are telling the Government not to screw the scrum to its own advantage and not to let its conflict of interest enable it to overrule good law and good process.

I want to point out that this bill changes Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. That perhaps is the most fascinating part of the bill. I have heard the Minister for the Environment vigorously defend Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. She says the criteria is appropriate for everywhere in the country, yet when it comes to Project Aqua it appears the Government will screw the position by suddenly saying that it has to take into account the national perspective of economic benefits. Why should the national perspective of economic benefits be considered for this project, but for no other? If the Government were bringing in a resource management amendment bill to change the rules for all rivers and for all consent applicants, that would be fair enough, but it should not do it exclusively to suit its own project.

The Government is getting our country into an awful mess in respect of both resource law and energy law. New Zealand does need new generation, but this sort of playing favourites and putting this bill alongside the resource management energy bill, will create a right mess. There should be a reform of the Resource Management Act for all, not just for some. The Government’s abuse of process, and rigging the rules to suit itself, will bring it down. New Zealanders stand very firmly of the view that there is one law for all. The Government has brought a bill into this House that provides for a different set of rules for the biggest dam scheme in this country in 30 years. That is nothing less than a constitutional outrage. National will fight this bill every step of the way.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): The bill is very important and attempts to address a number of key issues. At the very least it deserves, and will get, very close scrutiny from this side of the House.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I am rather mystified that a member from Canterbury would make such an inadequate, almost stupid, statement in defence of what is a constitutional outrage, with regard to resource management, and then leave the House—and leave us behind. Why do we have the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill of last year alongside this bill, which both bypass the usual processes of the Resource Management Act of 1991? A common theme is starting to develop across the floor of the House with this minority Labour Government that is not acknowledged. The theme is that the Resource Management Act is not adequate to deal with the allocation issues that the Government sees with regard to the Waitaki River valley. It is not adequate to deal with the competitive commercial environment. That is the underlying statement of this bill. If that is so, why did we not avail ourselves, and why did that minority party not avail itself, of the opportunity when it picked up the Simon Upton bill of 1998? It had ample time—almost 4 years—to go through the main tenets, the underlying philosophy, of that bill, and how it operated in the practice and process and sought to implement the reforms that we on this side of the House know now that that Act needs.

This bill is no answer at all. It is nothing more than a pragmatic, ad hoc approach to what is a very, very serious issue in New Zealand. Why has it been introduced so soon after the Resource Management Amendment Act? The answer lies with the Government. At the start of the year we went through the whole process. We gave the Government ample opportunity to review the Act thoroughly. There was no willingness—perhaps there was no understanding. I am not sure which it was.

Today we come to another piece of piecemeal legislation, which is pragmatic in its supposed purpose. Let us be quite clear. It is another deliberate moving away from the thinking of the Resource Management Act. I go back to the Resource Management Bill as it came to the House, in the memory of some members on the Government side. The Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer said in August 1990—against the ghost of Clyde Dam: “In fact, in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However, those are not statements for particular projects; and they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” I repeat that they are not, in the mind of the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer, the National Development Act in disguise, and that refers to the Clyde Dam.

I am saying to the House that this is what we have today. We have the Clyde Dam revisited. There has been a slight change in the timing of where the bill and the Act appear, but it is the same disastrous process. It is the same lack of attention to what ought to have been the finer framework of the Clyde River and now the Waitaki River valley. Is this a sign of things to come? I hope not. Waitaki now—Auckland transport next week; climate change tomorrow—energy shortfalls next year; Kyoto obligations—probably in 2005: all to be solved by an ad hoc, pragmatic approach, with imprest Government proposals coming to the House, and with little wish for any proper purposeful thinking, but instead, imprest Government direction and imprest ministerial direction from Cabinet—from the Prime Minister herself, I have no doubt.

There is no overarching philosophy. Is that not clear in what the Minister herself has said in recent statements, which were aired again in the House this afternoon? The Minister said that this will reduce the time delays. “I wish to achieve expedient decisions, ensuring the process is as quick as possible.” The most important aspect, the Minister said, will be to “serve certain outcomes”.

The previous speaker has already raised the issue of conflict of interest, whereby this Government company, which annually gives dividends back to the New Zealand Government, is the subject of special legislation. We in New Zealand First say that that is not good enough. Why is it not good enough, in simple, practical terms? We believe earnestly that the process should apply to A J Brown, as to Meridian. It should apply to everyone. Here, for the first time, we have a major shift in resource management thinking, whereby the big guy gets his or her day in court, because it is an absolutely protected cocoon, and without any fear of Government or anybody else interfering with the ultimate outcome.

Why is it so important to Waitaki? I am very indebted, as other members will be, for the excellent work of the Otago Daily Times and to David Bruce, who have kept their minds on the matter right through, including in yesterday’s editorial.

In an earlier opinion in the Otago Daily Times, going back to Monday, 27 October, a very important comment was made—I think, unwisely, but that is a matter of opinion—by John Rice, consenting manager for Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua. This is not a debate about Project Aqua; it is a debate on the processes. But, just to see where he saw things going, so far as Project Aqua was concerned, he said: “The river will still be there with Project Aqua, albeit a smaller and different river,”. In other words, this process, in the minds of the major developer, would change the Waitaki River for ever, and there is no wonder that the issues down there are ones of distrust, of high stress and emotion, in which have developed the climate of uncertainty and anxiety, and the uncertainty of change.

The issue we have to consider, as we go through the various stages of the bill, is that we have a right in this country, and the people living in the Waitaki River catchment area have a right, to expect a certain process. The process is there in the Resource Management Act. It is one that empowers individuals and gives the community a minimal and maximum right, with regard to the impact of a decision that affected them, step by step.

So we come to this bill. The previous speaker has already outlined some of the issues, but the major point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that we are extremely concerned about this complete ministerial dictation and direction with regard to the total process, at each point. It is the Minister who appoints the board. It is the Minister who decides upon the calibre in terms of direction, and the choice this Minister and this Cabinet would make is a very big issue for members on this side of the House. What if the Minister, having made perhaps an ill choice—out of the four—finds that one of them is not to her choice? Instant dismissal!

This is a compliant Government imposing its direction upon the people of Waitaki—at every point. However, there was a choice to decide—in view of the known ingredient of a lack of a completed water allocation framework for Canterbury—to have a minor amendment to the resource management legislation, setting out the proposal with regard to water allocation, knowing that the Otago Regional Council has an excellent water plan; knowing that Environment Canterbury has a half-finished plan; and knowing that if the ministry had thought about this over the last year and a half, in the recesses of its mind, an amendment could have come to the House, been before the House, and have gone.

That allocated framework would have allowed the local councils to have directed the applications, after hearing the applications in the normal way. The advantages would have been to allow the Environment Court to be a court of appeal for all matters, not just for matters that were to be decided by those elsewhere. We would have gone through the proper process.

The issue for New Zealand First is that we oppose this bill at the present time. We oppose it because it is pragmatic. It is a very indifferent pragmatic approach to a major problem of water and water allocation. We oppose it because the processes that are set out in this bill are a denial of natural justice and equality for all applicants, no matter who they are. We look forward with great interest to the second reading and the discussion in the select committee. On that note I want to pause and say: “Why oh why is March the report date, when this matter is of such national importance?”. It is the largest dam to be built in recent history, and the legislation is going to be compressed and pushed through. That, in itself, is a very excellent example of this Government’s arrogant, unthinking, and not-listening attitude. It is prepared to push on and roll over things like a steamroller. May it reap the benefit of this ill-considered approach.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): No one should be in any doubt at all that this bill is being introduced because the Government wants Project Aqua to proceed, and if applications for water rights are considered in the order they were received, there may not be enough water left in the river for the mega-electricity project. At the same time, this bill underlines serious failures in the way the Resource Management Act itself has worked and in the provisions that regional councils have made.

The Act provides for all applications to take or discharge into water to be heard in the order they are received, and focuses on considering the effects of each application. There is no provision for considering cumulative effects in this first-up, best-dressed process. The Act was passed at a time when there was a real prejudice against anything one could call “planning”. Some councils have taken the view that under the Resource Management Act councils are not supposed to plan for their communities, but just to consider the effects of each proposal on an ad hoc basis. The resulting mess in the Waitaki shows that this is a failed approach and that councils have got to be more proactive.

Regional councils have had 12 years to do something about this in their regional policy statements and plans, and the Ministry for the Environment has had 12 years to see that they did it. But they have not. It is not as though they have had no warning of the situation. The need to plan for cumulative effects was debated at the time the Act was passed, and it is not true that as recently as 12 years ago we thought there was all the water in the South Island rivers that we could possibly need. It was clear even then that there would be conflicts over water in drought-prone areas of the South Island before long, and the warnings about effects-based planning were sounded at the time. It was up to regional councils to plan for ways to consider cumulative effects and resource shortages. They could have developed water allocation policies, setting out the priorities in their region, and water management plans for each catchment against which to consider specific applications. But in most cases they have not. As a result, all local users of water fear that if Project Aqua is given consent there will be nothing left for anyone else or for the river itself.

The Greens oppose ad hoc project-based legislation, but we are in a mess here. The status quo cannot work. In that situation somebody needs to take action and set up a process for water allocation under the resource management criteria in the Act. Given that applications are already in the system, the only way to do this is for the Government to use its call-in powers. It has not done that for Project Aqua alone, but it has done it for all competing applications, and prior to that for the allocation process itself. This is actually not like the Clyde Dam. In that situation the National Government used Parliament to overturn a High Court decision and approve a single project. The project had been through its planning process. It had, in the final appeal, been turned down, and Parliament and the National Government overturned that legal decision for a single project. That was real “picking winners”. This bill is not as bad as that.

The Greens are cautiously supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, because, frankly, we do not see what other course of action is available. Given time, it could have been done with a national policy statement, but a national policy statement would take too long to resolve the current impasse. It should, however, still happen. A national policy statement under the Act for the protection and allocation of fresh waters would help regional councils everywhere to do their job better. That would not take away their power to determine local priorities, but it would offer guidance at a higher level. Instead this legislation leads to us saying, and here I do agree with Nick Smith: “Why only the Waitaki?”. Do other rivers not also need catchment plans and water allocation policies? Other rivers are certainly at risk of over-allocation, and some believe they are already over-allocated. Are we going to wait until there is another Government-favoured project that needs water, before we address the generic issues? I believe we should look seriously at amending the Resource Management Act to require regional councils to establish catchment management plans for each river system and water allocation plans for the water resources they control, so that this situation will not arise again.

Having said that, I note that there are some reassuring things about this bill. It is reasonably faithful to the principles of the Resource Management Act. It says that in-stream values must be considered first, then water for stock and domestic use, and, finally, some division of the remainder between industrial uses, such as irrigation and hydro-power. But the devil is in the detail, and the select committee will be considering the submissions carefully and looking for amendments to make sure this is the best process that can possibly be established in the circumstances.

In particular, the Greens are concerned at the composition of the board, which will allocate water among different uses with no right of appeal except on matters of law. The Bill provides for that board to be appointed solely by the Minister, and raises the concern that it will be there just to serve the Minister’s interests. There is a balancing of local and national interests that must be served here, and the very least we might expect is for the Minister to give some power of appointment of at least a minority of the positions to local government in the region. Another option would be to invite an independent and expert authority, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to appoint one of the members. The possibility that the board may comprise as few as two people is a serious worry. Two people, between them, could not possibly have the mix of expertise that is needed to properly consider all the complex and technical issues that will arise here. It is vital that the board has within it some expertise in in-stream river values. Otherwise board members will be captive to whatever line the best-paid lawyers and consultants can sell them. Make no mistake, all the pressure from all the applicants here will be to take as much water as possible, and leave as little as possible for the river itself. So the upper limit of five members seems to us much more appropriate than the lower limit of two. There is no appeal against the decision of this board, so it must be given the resources and the time to get it right first off. The time it is given must respect what is possible for the local people, volunteering their free time and without much money. It must not be a process designed only for those who are full time and well resourced. That means the select committee should set a longer time than normal for submissions, particularly as it is over the Christmas period, and be prepared to work the extra hours that the Minister has made possible in order to still progress the bill rapidly.

The outcome of the process will set precedents for water allocation plans on other rivers, too. It must have regard to principle at every step, and not just be a shortcut to a project that the Crown wants. Under this bill the consent-hearing process will be taken out of the hands of local councils. Instead of arguing their case in front of their elected representatives, local people will have to front up to a more formal and unfamiliar process, dominated by big players with highly paid lawyers and consultants. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure the balance is as fair as it can be made, both in terms of the process followed and of the resources made available.

Finally, I want to say a word about Project Aqua itself—the immediate trigger for this bill. Nick Smith managed to say a lot about how terrible the process was and avoid telling us anything about where National stands on Project Aqua. It would be nice to know. I will tell members where the Greens stand. The Greens oppose it. It is being touted as part of the answer to our dry-winter electricity shortages. New Zealanders need to know that if we sacrifice our largest braided river by diverting three-quarters of it out of the riverbed to a canal, it will actually make dry-winter shortages worse. Project Aqua will generate most power when there is most water in the river. That will be in summer. The lower demand in summer and the greater supply will lower prices in summer, making investment in wind power less likely, yet wind power is not subject to dry-year shortages and provides the balance we need to having all our eggs in the hydro basket. In the driest winter months Project Aqua may generate nothing at all, because the flow will not exceed the minimum required for the river itself. The company has disguised that, with figures given for the annual generation in a dry year. But most of that annual generation will be in summer when power is not short. Looking at the figures for last June, we see that the water available above the minimum flow Meridian Energy proposes was a quarter of the 340 cumecs that represents full capacity for Project Aqua. Last winter was by no means the driest we should plan for. So in our time of greatest need we can expect Project Aqua to hardly be there. At the very least we owe these people a fair and inclusive process for putting their case for local values against a Crown-owned corporation.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT): In addressing this bill, I have to make the observation that we have heard it all now. We have had an extraordinary speech from the co-leader of the Greens, saying that they are opposed to Project Aqua, yet they come to Parliament and want to pass legislation that fast tracks it. They want to fast track something that they are opposed to. I cannot see a lot of logic in that. The ACT party has a much clearer position. We recognise the need for Project Aqua—the energy supply for this country is in a looming crisis situation, and getting worse by the week—but we oppose this appalling process. This is a national development Act equivalent. Moreover, it is an admission by this Government that the Resource Management Act has failed. What did the Minister say? She said that the Resource Management Act is beautifully written and beautifully balanced. I put it to the House it is about as beautifully balanced as that member, the Minister for the Environment. [Interruption] Some may regard her as Tinkerbell but I personally think that would be stretching it a bit far.

The Government is saying that the Resource Management Act is fine, it is not holding up investment in this country, and it is beautifully balanced and beautifully written, yet when its State-owned enterprise comes up against it, potentially—this Project Aqua in the Waitaki—what does it do? It rams through a Clyde Dam equivalent to fast track it. Is that not an admission that the Resource Management Act does not work? The Government says: “Oh, one can tender for the private sector, and others; the Act is balanced and beautifully written.” But instead of being balanced and neutral, and fixing it for the whole of the country, so that all development projects can compete on equal terms, the Government, when it has to confront the Act and run the gauntlet—knowing that it would take 10 years to get its resource consents through—brings this legislation to the House. It is an outrage of process. That is very arrogant of this Government.

Hon Richard Prebble: Could we add the Auckland motorway completion as an appendix?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: My colleague Richard Prebble suggests that if the Government is of this frame of mind, it could make a full list and add the Auckland motorway projects to get them through the Resource Management Act. And it could add all those other things that are held up and are costing jobs, costing potential investment in this country, and leading to our people—our best and our brightest—leaving through lack of opportunities. But the situation is actually worse than that because the Government is turning the clock back about 15 years. It is effectively setting up a Waitaki catchment commission. Until the Resource Management Act came in, and local government reforms, we had 18 catchment boards and water resource boards around this country to do the very job that has been proposed here—that is, allocate water in an administrative local government “picking-winners” type model. What has the Government done? It has set up another Waitaki catchment commission. This one is a bit different. The old Waitaki catchment commission was elected by local people with local interest. Not any more! There will be ministerial appointment of the chairman, the deputy chairman, and the whole board. Those board members hold their position at the pleasure of—guess who—the Minister for the Environment.

Hon Richard Prebble: Labour Party hacks.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Labour Party hacks, held there at the pleasure of the Minister for the Environment. It is an outrage, as other speakers have observed. The other interesting aspect is that one cannot take appeal. The decision of this new catchment commission cannot be appealed to the Environment Court—only on very narrow points of law. So all other investment and all other potential developers in the country who want to create wealth and prosperity will run the gauntlet of the application process, and they are inevitably confronted with an appeal to the Environment Court. That takes a lot of time and money and delays investment in this country. The Government has fast tracked it in the process initially, but also precluded it from going to the Environment Court on appeal on anything other than narrow points of law. The issue is to go back to that administrative public sector “picking winners” in the allocation of any resource. The allocation of water is very important, but we gave up on the administrative allocation decades ago, and pricing mechanisms is the only way to allocate a resource like water. But because of the philosophy of this socialist Government, it is not prepared to consider pricing mechanisms to ensure the proper use of what are scarce resources like water.

This situation is not unique to Waitaki—the same is true of Nelson, Hawke’s Bay, Canterbury, or Auckland. Water will be in increasingly tight supply at various times throughout the country, so why specific legislation for Waitaki only? The only reason can be that it is the Government’s pet project to buy it time in the energy sector. Project Aqua is major. It is a $1.2 billion development, which is very significant, and ACT observes that it is actually needed. We have had a fourfold increase in our electricity demand over the last 40 years, and our demand is continuing to expand at 800 gigawatt hours per year. Project Aqua would deliver 3,000 gigawatt hours, so we actually need a Project Aqua equivalent every 4 years. Every 4 years we should be thinking of a Project Aqua equivalent. What is this Government doing? It has locked up our coal reserves. Most energy planners recognise that the only realistic option for us in the medium term—the next 20 years—is coal, but oh no, we have signed up to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol, so we have to pretend that our coal is not in the ground.

We have at least 1,000 years of coal in the ground in this country, but this Government, because of its political arrogance and ignorance, says that we cannot use it. It will not consider the nuclear option, because that is against Labour Party mantras. It will not allow smaller hydro schemes on the West Coast, like the Dobson dam, which is a very sensible scheme. It would deliver 65 megawatts in a water-rich area. But oh no, that would have created a little lake on Department of Conservation land, so we could not have that. The Minister of Conservation turned it down, and now the Government is having to bite the hard choice, which is the modification of the lower Waitaki flow below Kurow, with a channel taking about 70 percent of the low flow and passing it through some six power generation stations. It is little wonder that the Government will have a huge problem on its hands. Potentially, it will be another Manapouri, which is what the Government is desperately trying to avoid by this grubby little bill that it has brought to the House. The Otago Daily Times editor summed it up rather well this week in some rather harsh words against the Government when he said: “This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It cannot be condoned. The Government is on notice that any attempt to fast-track the draining of the Waitaki River will not be tolerated.” Those are the sentiments of the editor of the Otago Daily Times. The Government knows that, but it is not prepared to subject itself to the gauntlet of our appalling planning procedures in this country, which have remained unmodified for far too long, and, instead, has the temerity and the gall to bring fast-track legislation to this House with the sole purpose of easing the way for its own State-owned enterprise, Meridian Energy. Who gets all the profits from Meridian Energy? Guess who gets all the dividend payments from Meridian Energy!

Hon Richard Prebble: Dr Cullen.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Dr Cullen brings in all those dividends. The Government is completely dominating the energy sector, both generation and transmission, and now it wants to bring all those dividends back in. It is just another form of taxation so that the Government can spend—and waste—the money in the unproductive sector of this country. ACT will be opposing this bill through all its stages. We recognise the need for Project Aqua, but we say to this Government that if it is to bring in fast-track legislation like this, it should do it on a neutral basis across the economy so that we can start to generate wealth and create some prosperity for this country.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I am pleased to support this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I call the Hon Mark Burton.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sought the call. You heard me—because you looked at me. You then looked across and called Ms Pettis. I was aware that Labour members were giving one-sentence speeches and not speaking on this legislation. I remained standing and sought the call again, and I believe that I should now have the call, because they should alternate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry. I call the Hon Roger Sowry.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I start by saying that it is extraordinary that the member for Otago, whose electorate this project runs right through, has chosen not to stand in this House and speak on this legislation. I do not know whether Mr Parker—who, they say, is Otago’s MP—is allowed to speak on the legislation or whether he has been sent away so that he cannot speak on it, but have never seen a member of Parliament refuse to speak on a bill that is so major and concerns a project that runs right through his constituency. Mr Parker is trying to pretend that there is no view on that, at all. It is extraordinary that, on a bill that does for Project Aqua much the same as previous legislation did for the Clyde Dam—which the Labour Party fought tooth and nail—and that gives a whole new process to the consenting of the water usage rights of the Waitaki, Labour is putting up North Island Labour members to say: “This is a good bill” and sit down. Why are they so scared to stand up in the House and fight for the bill? Why is no Māori member prepared to stand up and talk about Ngāi Tahu’s view on water usage? Where is Mr Parker? Why is David Parker—the elected member for the area—not prepared to get on his hind legs in the House and speak on this bill?

Equally extraordinary in this debate has been the behaviour of the Greens, who, we know, oppose Project Aqua. Indeed, Jeanette Fitzsimons just told us that a few moments ago. We know that the Greens, a week or two ago, were opposing this bill. The Greens toddled along to us and said that the bill will not be going to Jeanette Fitzsimon’s select committee. The Government is sending it to the Education and Science Committee, rather than the Local Government and Environment Committee, which usually deals with this sort of legislation. That is what the Government is going to do. So the Greens cut a deal, which was that they would vote for the first reading of the bill if the Government sent it to their select committee, which Ms Fitzsimons chairs. They cut a deal. What an extraordinary party of principle the Greens are, to be able cut a deal like that! Then we listened to the speech made by Ms Fitzsimons, in which she said that the Greens oppose Project Aqua but that they will vote for the bill—which will assess whether Project Aqua will get the water—because it will come to the committee that she chairs, and that if she had not done that, the bill would not be going to her committee.

Then there is the United Future party. Well! Just 4 weeks ago, that party did a different deal. It did a deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. That is a loose-knit political organisation that totally opposes 75 percent of the water being taken out of the Waitaki river and used in that project. Peter Dunne stitched up a political deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. He went to the country and said: “Look—I’ve got another party that has joined the great Christian coalition. It’s made us a bit less Christian, but we’re OK.” Now, on the first bit of legislation that Outdoor Recreation NZ has a stated, public view on, United Future will vote the other way. It will vote for the first reading of the bill, to allow the water to be used, even though Outdoor Recreation NZ has a different view. How long will that deal last? I do not think it will last very long, at all, although I am sure that United Future will go back to outdoor recreation groups and say: “No, no. We just voted for the introduction. We’re really with you. We won’t vote for it any more. We will get some concessions.” La-di-da—it is the normal sort of stuff we have heard from them over a period of time. They are the sorts of good weasel words that have got them through another year.

Quite clearly, the National Party opposes this bill. National is opposed to doing little deals for one State-owned enterprise to bypass the Resource Management Act. National believes that if the Resource Management Act is right, then we should let it work for everything; if it is wrong—and the Government clearly believes that it is wrong—then the Government should come and fix it for everyone. I was with representatives of Mighty River Power, another State-owned enterprise, the other day, and they are just watching this so closely because—guess what? They have projects they want to do around the country, and what do they need to get them done? Oh, they need just a little bit of special legislation, just a one-off bill to bypass the Resource Management Act—just the same sort of principle we are seeing here applied to them. So how will the Government say no to Mighty River Power, Genesis, or Contact Energy, and say yes to Meridian Energy? That will be an interesting dilemma for this Government.

I also want to say, with regard to Project Aqua, that National is not in this House supporting or opposing that project. It is not the job of political parties to sit here at this stage and say that that is the project we should go with. What this nation needs is a decent energy plan, and that is just an example of the leadership that this Government is not giving. There is no energy plan. There is no plan about how we will overcome energy shortages. All we have from the Government is a mishmash of environmental ideals and sustainability statements, with no plan at all. Now, there will be a commission set up, and it will be able to regulate, impose costs, and do a whole lot of other things—and that is another story, because that will not work, at all.

The Minister, in her speech, was extraordinary. Here we have, for the first time since 1990—the first time in 13 years—a situation when the Minister has had to come into the House and say: “I have got a project and the Resource Management Act simply won’t meet it, and I want to pass legislation similar to what happened with the Clyde Dam. Labour opposed it then, but now we want to pass legislation to support getting this project through.” Well, I say to the Minister that if the legislation does not work for this project, or for the Dobson dam, then why not change it for all projects? Why is the Minister going through this charade? Why is she saying in the House that the Resource Management Act is beautifully balanced legislation when she knows it does not work?

I look forward to the Minister appearing before the select committee to explain why she is supporting this piecemeal and haphazard legislation. I look forward to her explaining that—and she will be invited. National signals right now that we will want the Minister to appear before the select committee to explain the policy principles behind the bill. I wager any member on the Government side that the Minister will not front. She will be as conspicuous by her absence as the member for Otago is today by his. He just will not front. It is no wonder that down in Otago they ask: “Who is he?” He has been here during the week, but when the one major bill, the only bill that will directly affect his electorate in the whole 3 years of his short political life, is introduced, my gosh, he has suddenly got a haircut in Oamaru and he cannot be here today. Well, that member will be judged on that, because he will not be able to fool the people of Otago—just as this Government and Minister will not be able to fool the people of Otago on this legislation. If the Resource Management Act is working, then the bill is not needed; if it is not working, the whole Act should be changed.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this bill. The first point I want to make in this debate is that United Future supports this first reading because, unlike the honourable member Dr Nick Smith, we understand the difference between fast tracking the process and fast tracking a project. It was clearly evidenced by the member’s questions in question time today that he was struggling to understand the difference between fast tracking a project and fast tracking the process, which is something people all over this country have been asking for, for years—that the Resource Management Act processes be speeded up in order to give greater certainty to business and communities in terms of the outcomes. We are able to do that, through this legislation, without giving any certainty to any particular project. It must go through its process and be subject to the community’s input, but the process will be speeded up considerably. That is important for the people of New Zealand, because we need to know whether projects such as this—energy projects that will deliver for the country—will be able to go forward. That is why United Future is keen to support the first reading of this legislation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it fast-track?

LARRY BALDOCK: It does not surprise me that Nick Smith has difficulty understanding that difference, though, because I have sat with him through most of this year on the “corngate” inquiry, and he has had considerable difficulty all year in understanding the word “tolerance”, although it has been explained to him on many, many occasions by some of the best experts we have. He has still been unable to understand the difference there.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the member is a new member, but I understand we are debating the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, but the member is debating the “corngate” inquiry. I would welcome the opportunity to debate that inquiry in Parliament, and would be happy to seek leave to do so, but I suggest he keeps to the topic of the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for pointing that out. I invite the member to come to the matter at hand.

LARRY BALDOCK: I am happy to debate this legislation, and I am also happy to mention that the Minister for the Environment announced in question time today significant reductions in the backlog of cases in the Environment Court, and a great deal of improvement in the efficiency of cases being heard by the court and being processed. That is extremely good news for our country. It is good news for all of those who queue up to have their time in that court, because they will get greater certainty as a result. But what is good news for us and good news for the people of New Zealand is, clearly, bad news for National members, who have constantly harped on about the difficulties with the Resource Management Act. Once that issue is taken away from them, I wonder what on earth they will find to complain about.

United Future has continued to work with the Government to improve the Resource Management Act process, and since we ensured the passage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill, which had been stalled for 4 years in this House, we have continued to discuss proposals and ideas to further improve and streamline the Resource Management Act consent process. We have constantly raised the need for a better process to enable projects of significant benefit to the nation and to regional economies to be given greater clarity and certainty regarding their outcomes. That is what this legislation is about. This bill will be somewhat of a test case for those proposals, and United Future supports its first reading and referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, for that reason.

I say again that this bill is not about fast tracking a particular proposal; it is about fast tracking a process. We expect to hear many submissions on this bill, with a wide range of views. That will enable the committee to examine the benefits of this legislation and the process it seeks to put into place, as well as to hear a balance of views from those who have raised potential concerns. United Future looks forward to that process in the select committee, and we commend this bill to the House.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I want to make my position abundantly clear right from the outset. Despite the Minister for the Environment’s rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is specifically designed to fast track Project Aqua. I cannot help but wonder whether this legislation would be happening at all—let alone being rushed through the House with indecent haste—if Meridian Energy was not a wholly owned Government business. That this country needs more electricity generation is not disputed, but in addressing the issue the Government is cherry-picking the Resource Management Act in the most cynical way possible to suit its own purposes.

Back in 1990, none other than the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer, in the second reading of the Resource Management Bill, said: “… in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However, those are not statements for particular projects; they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” Clearly, the then Government was keen to distance the Resource Management Act from the former National Development Act, and to make sure that the Government would not be making policy in respect of particular projects. The hypocrisy of that argument is not lost on me. This is special legislation designed to fast track Project Aqua, and to skew decision making in favour of development.

I do not have a problem with the change of emphasis per se. In fact, I would argue that it is long overdue. The level of frustration felt by New Zealanders when they brush up against the Resource Management Act is at boiling point. My problem, though, is that the Resource Management Act needs a radical overhaul, but, rather than fix it, the Government is amending it for its very selective purpose, to suit its own needs. It seems incomprehensible that generic legislation has been drafted to cover the processing of consents for major infrastructure projects generally, yet the Waitaki consent process will be dealt with by the expedience of one-off legislation. It smacks of legislation that is politically expedient being promoted for a single State-owned enterprise project. It smacks of a Government picking winners, as happened in the Muldoon era—and some present members of this Government screamed the loudest about that process.

The powers vested in the Minister under this legislation should concern the wider community. A Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board will be established, and the board will be totally appointed and maintained by the Minister. I have heard others in the National Party refer to this, and I totally concur with them: members will serve at the Minister’s pleasure and they will take her advice. This is a Clayton’s board, and I essentially believe that it is the Minister in drag.

Hon Roger Sowry: It’s not a pleasant thought.

BRIAN CONNELL: Mr Sowry is quite right; it is not a pleasant thought. Furthermore, a decision of the board, unlike the current Resource Management Act practice, cannot be appealed to the Environment Court; it can be appealed only to the High Court on points of law.

So what underpins Project Aqua? The answer is electricity shortages, but I have reservations that Project Aqua will actually be the panacea this Government wants us to swallow. It comes with significant risk. It comes with a price tag estimated at $1.25 billion—and I have reservations about the accuracy of that costing—and a pricing model that I believe needs closer scrutiny. Much has been said about a fairer allocation model, but in reality 95 percent of the water that will be used will go to Project Aqua. Seventy-three percent of the water from our last great braided river will be channelled for 60 kilometres down canals that will dissect some of our best and most productive farmland. So that there is no mistake as to the size of these canals, I point out that they will be large enough to sail two Cook Strait ferries side by side at any one time.

The Government’s company, Meridian Energy, has adopted a bull in a china shop negotiating style and ridden roughshod over the concerns of local communities. The people of Kurow will have to put up with 70-tonne dump trucks running up their main street every 2 minutes, yet Meridian Energy has not even had the decency to commission a social impact study. Despite local concerns, this Government wants to accelerate this process.

Will Project Aqua solve our electricity crisis? At best, it is problematic. It will certainly destroy one of our great rivers—there is no doubt about that. It is difficult to see the proposal, in one of New Zealand’s most drought-prone areas, assisting electricity generation in low-flow dry years. At times of critical low inflow, Project Aqua is unlikely to deliver anything, yet it is promoted as an essential contributor to our baseload supply. I can only shudder at what future generations might think of us if it comes to pass. I have no doubt that we must solve our generation problems if we are to develop as a nation, but I have severe reservations about whether this project is the way to do it. I would expect this Government right now to be standing up and putting in place a strategy that dealt with that issue, not cherry-picking the Resource Management Act, and not trying to pick winners. That is what it is doing.

I have to echo the question that has been asked by some other members of this House: where is Mr Parker today? Where is Mr Parker when one of the most critical things that New Zealand will face—and certainly the most critical thing that he will face in his electorate—is being discussed? Why is he not taking a call? Why has the whip not demanded that he take a call on an issue that is so critical, rather than the whip trying to protect him? This will come back and bite him, mark my words.

Jill Pettis: He’s in his electorate.

BRIAN CONNELL: He is making a guest appearance, is he? He should be here today because this is where he is needed.

Hon Roger Sowry: He’s paid to be here.

BRIAN CONNELL: Mr Sowry is dead right and I thank him for his contribution. Finally, I want to express National’s strong opposition to this bill. This Government is applying the rules only as it sees fit, to support a project that will be undertaken by its own company. This is not democratic, nor is it in the best long-term interests of this country.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in support of this excellent and timely legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): As the only member from Otago who is prepared to speak on this bill, I seek leave of the House to take just a 5-minute call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought by the member. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a first time.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence), on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 15 March 2004, 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 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): There is an amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to the motion, to omit the words “15 March 2004” and to substitute the words “30 June 2004”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 9.

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there may have been a misreporting here. You will recall the speech from the co-leader of the Greens, who gave a passionate plea for an extended reporting date. I notice that she is not in the House now. Perhaps Mr Locke has not received the right instructions from his party leader. The party leader clearly said her party wanted a later reporting date, and now it is abstaining on that issue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising the issue, but the party concerned has a representative in the House and I have no doubt he has been fully briefed; otherwise, he would have jumped to his feet and changed the vote himself.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs), on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its final report by Monday, 1 March 2004.

The bill amends the Resource Management Act of 1991 to extend the current moratorium on coastal permit applications for aquaculture activities. The moratorium has been in place since 28 November 2001, and is due to expire on 25 March 2004. The bill extends the moratorium to 31 December 2004. The moratorium was introduced to enable the Government to reform aquaculture law, and to enable councils to begin planning for aquaculture under the new framework. It has ensured that councils have not been flooded with marine farm applications, in a race for space, before the new legislation comes into effect. An extension of the moratorium is now unavoidable, due to a delay in the introduction of aquaculture reform legislation.

The foreshore and seabed issues have introduced late and unexpected issues to the aquaculture policy process. Both concern the use of, and access to, coastal space. The Government intends to deal with them in an integrated and consistent way. The Government is driven to avoid the need for an extension to the moratorium. The issues are profound and complex, but an extension now will ensure that we get the legislation and policy right. The Minister of Fisheries told the marine farming industry in July that an extension of the moratorium might be necessary, and that if it were, it would be for a defined period—measured in months, not years. Consistent with that, the extension proposed in the bill is for 9 months only.

The Government is committed to aquaculture law reform because the current legislative framework is outdated, overcomplicated, and dysfunctional. The new legislation will allow for the expansion of marine farming, while ensuring that it is managed sustainably, allowing for recreational, environmental, customary, and commercial interests. The bill also deals with a problem arising from the present dual permitting process for marine farming. Some coastal permits issued under the Resource Management Act for aquaculture have lapsed. To remedy this, the bill deems existing coastal permits to have been given effect to, for Resource Management Act purposes, by an application for a Fisheries Act permit. The bill also revives certain coastal permits for aquaculture that had lapsed under the current conditions.

Finally, the bill removes the time limit within which the Minister of Conservation may recommend the early expiry of the moratorium in the specific area that it cancels requests. The current time limit of 20 working-days is insufficient to complete the Order in Council process. The bill does not impose a new time frame, but gives the Minister a general duty to avoid all unreasonable delay.

In summary, this bill provides for a limited extension to the aquaculture moratorium, and deals with some process problems arising for marine farmers from the current dual permitting regime. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Mr Speaker, you will recall that we opposed this moratorium when it came in 2 years ago. I want it on the record that the National Party opposes it now. It is with some irony that the Government puts up the Minister of Māori Affairs to introduce this bill to extend the moratorium. Clearly, he never read the commentary on the bill for the original moratorium that went before us 2 years ago. Had he read it, he would know that the commentary says that we received 143 submissions—how many?

John Carter: 143.

PHIL HEATLEY: All Māori groups opposed aspects of this bill. The following key issues were raised by Māori when it came to the moratorium in 2001. They said it had negative impacts on Māori development—and I ask, what has changed? It still has negative impacts on Māori development. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is of concern. Māori said back then that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—there still are, so what has changed? They opposed the moratorium then and I assume they oppose it now. Māori said there had been a lack of consultation by the Crown when the moratorium came in, and I assume that is the case now. So I ask why the Minister of Māori Affairs has so much confidence bringing this bill—an extension of that very moratorium—into the House today. Is he out there batting for his people? Does he know what they believe in, or does he not?

The aquaculture industry is a multimillion-dollar industry. It benefits Māori who are involved in it, it benefits all New Zealanders who are involved in it, and it benefits the wider economy. I am led to believe by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council that with managed expansion this industry could achieve export earnings of $1 billion by 2020 through 17,000 hectares of aquaculture farms—just 17,000 hectares, which is not a lot considering the water space available to New Zealanders.

The Aquaculture Council says that these forecasts are dependent on this one assumption: that new legislation put up by this Government would be enabling, and that there would not be undue delays in developing coastal plans. All we have seen from this Government are undue delays. It has put in place a moratorium of 2 years to enable it to get its act together, and another 9-month moratorium extension.

Here is a question that was put to the Minister in March 2003: “Given that the Government’s moratorium is due to end on 31 March 2004, is the Minister able to confirm that the moratorium will absolutely end on that date?” Who asked that question?

John Carter: Who did?

PHIL HEATLEY: Jim Peters asked that question. He asked in March whether the moratorium would absolutely end on that date. What was Pete Hodgson’s answer to Jim Peters?

Jim Peters: Yes!

PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, it will absolutely end on that date. That is why Minister Hodgson is not fronting this bill today in the House of Representatives, because he said yes, and the Minister of Māori Affairs said no.

The Government would have us believe that the foreshore and seabed issue is the sole reason that it has to extend this moratorium. That is what it said in the House last week, and that is what the Minister of Māori Affairs says now. I have a document leaked by Local Government New Zealand that clearly puts the blame on the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister, because regional councils have not been able to cope with aquaculture development in their areas through the course of this moratorium.

Here is the story of three people. Last week the Minister was asked in the House why he had not delivered the promised legislative framework for aquaculture, and why it was necessary to extend the moratorium. This is what the Minister said: “It is important to ensure that the proposed aquaculture law reforms are consistent with the resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue.” This is what I asked in the House last week: “Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has been helpful to regional councils in planning the future of marine farming, and that the moratorium was not extended simply because councils have no faith in the Ministry of Fisheries?”. This is what the Minister said: “I offer that assurance. It is due to the seabed issue, not because regional councils have concerns.” Yet this report by Local Government New Zealand states: “There are considerable uncertainties surrounding the shape and detail of the new aquaculture regime, and this has caused almost all regional councils to put their planning of aquaculture on the backburner. They want more clarity; there is considerable uncertainty. Additionally, regional councils believe that the delays in transition to the proposed aquaculture regime will be compounded by fundamental weaknesses in the Government’s proposed model.” That is what regional councils said, and that is what the Minister told us in the House—clearly, someone is not telling it straight.

Last week in the House I asked: “Can the Minister confirm that the moratorium was extended, not because of the seabed and foreshore fiasco, but because regional councils throughout New Zealand have consistently told him they have no faith in the draft aquaculture reform legislation, that the Ministry of Fisheries has been unhelpful, and that, consequently, they have had to put all of their aquaculture planning on hold? Can he confirm that the complication is not just with seabed, foreshore, and Māori, but with regional councils?” The Minister denied it. He said: “No, I certainly cannot confirm that.” He said it was all about the seabed and foreshore.

I turn to the document written by Local Government New Zealand. The Minister of Māori Affairs should sit up, stop slouching, and listen, because this is what regional councils say. They say that the weakness in the Government’s plans is the inability to designate aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries being shared with them, along with the apparent gaps in, and the inadequacies of, that information. Regional councils have been flying blind. The Government demanded that regional councils plan for aquaculture over the last 2 years. Local Government New Zealand says the Ministry of Fisheries has not shared essential fisheries and planning information. Further, what information it does hold, is entirely inadequate.

Local Government New Zealand says that little progress has been made under this 2-year moratorium. Most regional councils have put planning on hold. They are afraid that they will look to allocate space with no direction from the Government, that the Government will give space to Māori without informing them how much space will be given to Māori, how it will allocate it to Māori, how Māori will pay for that space—if they pay for it—and how that affects aquaculturists currently in the industry.

I put this issue to the House: regional councils have been flying blind. The Government should front up and admit that this moratorium is because it is not working closely with, and helping, regional councils throughout this country.

MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I stand here to support this bill unreservedly. It is an absolute response to an environmental issue that needs to be sorted. As far as the Minister of Māori Affairs is concerned, he is also the Acting Minister of Fisheries at this time. I am sure that I needed to add that correction.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): Phil Heatley has already picked up on the question that I asked in March, and I ask it again in relation to looking at the resource management aquaculture moratorium extension, and the original legislation as well. The question to the Acting Minister that I wish to begin with is: can he confidently tell us and the industry whether applications that are lodged after 1 January 2005 can be processed? That is the initial question that I asked in March, and the answer was yes. Unless he can give a confident and clear-cut yes answer now, then we may as well put this in the rubbish bin, and go away and have tea, for all the value that is there. The disappointing issue about that would be that this is a major growing industry in this country. Some regional councils—one that I have been working with, in particular—took the Minister to heart, and are now in the second planning stage with regard to the draft aquaculture marine areas, or the areas to be set aside. They were well prepared to have started on 1 April to process applications, if the ministry had done its work. I said “if the ministry had done its work”, and that is really the key here. The ministry obviously has not done its work, at all.

What are some of the issues that the ministry would have to look at? The most important one, and this is the reason why this is a nonsense sort of bill, is that absolutely no help is given to the industry at all on the key issues, and they are: how can marine farming rights within the aquaculture marine areas be allocated, and what is the principle under which they will take place? The strange thing is that in the foreword to the bill we have all this loose talk about reforms. I see no evidence, in the whole of the moratorium period, of any processing of reform implications in any way at all over the last 18 months. Nothing is forecast in this bill that will give any help to the industry at all. The industry is ready and out there, waiting to move. It is very appropriate that the Minister of Māori Affairs was the one who came to the House with the bill, as he knows, and I know, that there is no doubt out there that hapū and iwi all over the country are willing and waiting to start now.

That brings me to the second issue that has happened in recent times. Members on the other side of the House have hawked around a ridiculous idea of a 20 percent allocation. They have gone around, from marae to marae, and suggested a Cabinet fall-back of a 20 percent allocation to Māori of the aquaculture marine areas. That is patent nonsense. I was up in Parengarenga Harbour recently. They expect, and could expect, 100 percent in that area, not 20 percent, which is a useless type of threshold argument developed somewhere down here. But that has been developed, and the member knows it has been developed. That is evidence of the walk-over by Cabinet on the Māori members on the other side of the House. Accept a Cabinet idea; take it. It is an easy way out. Do it, and move on to the next matter. It is expedient, but it is not good enough.

The other issue, of course, with regard to marine farming rights in the allocation, is how the tendering will work. That is the key factor for the industry. How does the tendering system really work? There has been no help here. What criteria would a successful tenderer be required to set out in an application to establish a marine farm? No help has been given at all; nor has any help been given with regard to the alternative ways to allocate rights. Will we have a “first come first served” basis? Prior to this aquaculture moratorium that, effectively, was the way the system worked. Will all applicants, Māori and other applicants, have the certainty that they will have the opportunity to develop their application and have a reasonable chance of success? We know that a mini gold rush has taken place in marine farming, which has caused this to come into being in the first place, particularly with regard to the Marlborough district.

There has been no advice at all to the industry about those who were not well resourced being able to have the same opportunity as Sanfords or any other major players in the marine farming industry. There is no knowledge at all about those who hoped, particularly iwi and hapū, that they could in their limited way—in their harbour or coastal space—be able to meet their aspirations. There was not a bit of help at all, apart from one little visit by the Minister of Fisheries recently to Whangaruru Harbour. There has been no help at all to the industry as to what will be the agreed criteria for applications, with regard to the assessment. Do we go on the past record of the industry participant? Do we go on the financial stability of the successful or would-be successful applicant? Do we take it, as we would wish to in most of these cases, that the contribution to the local and regional economy will be taken into account in the final application? Those are all very important matters that will guide the future of this industry, and there has not been one word at all in the body of opinion sought from the Ministry of Fisheries. The ministry has been silent.

We come to the time when a mini-bill has been flipped into the House at late notice, without any certainty about the future at all for an industry that has the capacity with regard to oysters. From a hectare block of well-grown oysters one should be able to produce about 6,700 dozen oysters per year. The return to the oyster growers would be about $20,000 per hectare. The indirect return—the off-site return—would be about $17,500. The return on mussels is almost the same. It has a huge potential. In a small region like Northland at the present time we have roughly 700 hectares in aquaculture. We could, with correct planning, have upwards of 20,000 hectares available as from the date that this bill ceases to have any impact. That is the size of the industry. That is the potential. That is the opportunity. There are the jobs. There is no doubt that in many of our rural districts this is a unique opportunity either for direct or joint venture or for other ways to get into a long-term, profitable, and sustainable industry.

The last thing, in that regard, is that there has been adequate time for regional councils to have done their work. There has been adequate time for them to have met with their communities. In this country, as members know, we have a long-term direct link with the coast, the beach, the sand, and the salt spray. That has all been part of our past, it is part of our present, and will be part of our future. The marine farming industry would not wish to disturb that long-held belief, and the activity that is part of the coast and the sea. The marine farming industry wants to have an opportunity. It wants to be part of an income-earning capacity that is known and that is just beginning to emerge. But the moratorium is a step in the development being canned.

The last thing with regard to the industry, though, is this. Why did the Government ever impose a national moratorium? Why did the Government not work with those areas that were known to have marine farming potential? Why did parts of Otago and Southland, which will never be involved, have the same universal and national stance imposed upon them? It was very wrong indeed.

Pita Paraone: It was dumb!

JIM PETERS: It was a very dumb decision. It was unneeded. What the Government should have done, instead, is worked with those areas that were potentially known and had development—worked with them with regard to the marine farming issues that I have outlined, particularly the ones with regard to marine farming rights and tendering. The New Zealand First view would be that we should foster and encourage those. We could have had the situation today where, on 30 March or 1 April 2004, marine farming applications could begin to be processed. Members of the House will not be aware of the intense pressure that will come ahead, because this moratorium bill is not wanted and not needed. It will only impose a long-term impasse upon what could be high income and high development. New Zealand First opposes the bill absolutely.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a report from Local Government New Zealand dated November 2003 criticising the Government’s 2-year moratorium.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I will take a moment to reflect on the previous bill that we have just passed in this House. It is one of the extraordinary ironies of this Parliament that here we are trying to get a moratorium through on an industry that is potentially worth $4 billion to this country. That is one of the estimates that have been made by the industry. Here we are trying to slow that down or almost stop it. On the other hand, we are fast tracking Project Aqua, which will probably have one of the most deleterious impacts on one of the great rivers in this country. Perhaps I am a little off track on this particular subject, but it just strikes me as something of an extraordinary irony. The aquaculture industry accounts for 15 percent of New Zealand’s seafood exports at this time and is growing very, very rapidly. But perhaps I should correct myself; it used to grow very, very rapidly until the Government stepped in and said: “We can’t keep pace with this industry. We’re going to place a moratorium, but don’t worry about it. It will be for only a short period of time.” We are now back in the House extending that moratorium for another 12 months. I suspect that in 12 months’ time towards the end of 2004 we will be back again extending that moratorium.

For a moment or two it is also worth reflecting on the fact that there are some problems associated with this industry, not the least of which, of course, is that it is controlled by three Acts—the Resource Management Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Marine Farming Act. There is a real need for this legislation to be either modified, or placed under one overall controlling body, to ensure that this industry has real growth, and the potential can be realised. But to stop this industry for another 12 months is absolutely outrageous. This basically is saying to an industry that is chomping at the bit to get going: “Wait, because we officials have not put in place this wonderful, overall, overarching plan that we feel is so essential to ensure continuity and growth in the industry.”

It strikes me as being quite perverse. No other major industry is held in abeyance while the Government tries to catch up with what is happening. The House could reflect on what could have happened when the settlers, or, indeed, Māori, came to this country and the Government of that time said: “Let’s stop everything and develop a plan for agriculture in this country.” It would have been totally dumb to do that, but that is in fact the effect of what this Government is doing to this country at this time. I repeat: a $4 billion industry—an industry we desperately need—is being put aside while the Government and its officials desperately try to catch up on the problems that are real or perceived.

This is not a new industry, and this is what I find quite extraordinary. We have had 25 years of experience in aquaculture from the very first salmon farm in Takaka in the Nelson region. This is not a new concept and a new technology, and once it was applied to the ocean, then new technologies came away and it was progressing very, very favourably. Technology advances at a huge rate, and essentially does not wait for Governments to catch up.

One of the great problems is the lack of experience within the Labour Government to actually understand how industry works. The Government should not place this vital industry into a vacuum for another 12 months. Basically, the Government has said: “We’re suspending this industry. Wait until we decide what to do.” It is quite simple. I would have thought one of the most important things the Government could do is to say: “Let’s look at an area—say, for example, off the Otago coast.” There has been a coastal plan in place for many, many years—I think up to about 4 years now—and the Government could have said to Otago: “Let’s proceed just in your region as a model for what could happen, or, indeed, what should happen, and if mistakes are made we can rectify them in every other area. But a working model is needed to show what can happen or what should happen in other areas.”

The pleas of the Otago Regional Council were ignored, when it virtually pleaded with the Government: “Let us proceed, with certain cautions, of course, and have this working model that we can work out terribly well and see how this impacts on the rest of New Zealand.” That seems to me to be an extraordinarily sensible thing to have done—or it should have been done, but, of course, it has not been done. Why is that? It is basically of the Government’s own making. The Government has said: “We want to develop an oceans policy because our old friends in the Department of Conservation decided that what they want in the oceans is more important than what industry wants.”

The Government has to decide what areas will be set aside for conservation purposes, what areas could be set aside for just ordinary recreational opportunities, and what areas should be set aside for Māori. Surely, therein lies the nub of the problem. If the Government said: “We’re treating everybody in this country exactly the same.”, it would not have a Māori problem. There would be no foreshore and seabed claim. That would have just totally gone off the radar screen. All the Government had to do was to work out where the areas are for these marine reserves, where it could put aside areas for recreation, and the balance, for example, could be left entirely for the industry to decide whether in fact the technology is sufficiently advanced to place marine farms even 10 kilometres off the coast.

That could have been done, and should have been done, but it is because we put these impediments in front of ourselves as a nation that we now find this industry being held in abeyance yet again. It is absolutely unnecessary to have done so. For example, we hear that there are criticisms of what is perceived as some sort of gold-rush mentality. Where is the problem? If people wished to develop an area of 20,000 acres or 15,000 hectares, for example, after a period of time and they do not use this area, it is quite simple for the Government to say: “Unless this is up and working within this period of time the licence will lapse and it will go to the next tenderer so he or she can put capital into this area.”, and away we go again.

There certainly is some element of gold rush in it. Everybody who is interested in this particular industry is having a crack, knowing there is a huge resource out there from which some dollars can be made. But, most important, we can actually employ another 10,000 or 15,000 people in this industry if we develop it the way it should be developed. It must be developed along the lines of ensuring that the security of investment is 100 percent. It is absolutely essential to ensure continuity of this industry so that it can fulfil the destiny that the fishing industry really does have.

The demand for seafood is exponential, and New Zealand is beautifully placed to meet a huge portion of that demand, but one of the great fears I have is that the technology and knowledge will be lost overseas during this moratorium.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): On behalf of the Green Party I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill and to signal that the Green Party is supporting this legislation. The Green Party thinks that it is very unfortunate that the aquaculture legislation has been held up. Crucially significant issues have got in the way and become a temporary obstacle to progressing the legislation, in particular the issues around the foreshore and seabed. Those policy issues have implications in terms of whether we will see another Treaty of Waitangi breach in our modern times as a result of Government policy, and what the role of tangata whenua will be in making decisions and participating in making decisions around resource management in that marine environment.

Those are crucial decisions that have to be resolved by this Government, and the aquaculture legislation cannot really progress until those things have been resolved. The moratorium was originally put in place and needed so that a proper regulatory system could be put in place. That system is not yet in place. The Greens believe that there is no alternative but to extend the moratorium until such a system has been properly developed. As I say, that is why we are supporting this bill, unfortunate though the need may be.

We understand that the industry is impatient to get on to develop the aquaculture industry, and there are huge prospects, as Mr Eckhoff has mentioned. We understand that, but we do believe that return to the unregulated gold rush that was occurring before the moratorium is simply unacceptable. Mr Eckhoff accepted that there was some gold-rush mentality and he said that the industry has huge potential if it develops as it should. That is the crucial point. There needs to be some regulation to ensure that it develops in a proper way that maintains the balance between the industry developments and the conservation and ecological values. As I said, unfortunate though it may be, the extension of the moratorium is important. The Green Party will be supporting the bill.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The moratorium began in November 2001 and was due to finish on 25 March 2004. This bill will extend it to 31 December 2004—or earlier, if things are in place by that time to enable it to be lifted. The moratorium was implemented to stop a rush towards developing new marine farms before reforms to clarify the aquaculture industry’s ad hoc legislative and administrative framework could be put in place.

The aquaculture industry itself is strongly opposed to any extension of the moratorium, as it was to the original moratorium, and United Future understands that position. In fact, United Future considers a 9-month extension of the existing moratorium on new marine farms to be highly undesirable. However, we understand that the long-awaited aquaculture reform legislation that will make it possible for the moratorium to be lifted cannot go ahead until the seabed and foreshore issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

The aquaculture industry has the potential for huge growth, and there is a huge opportunity cost in preventing that growth for any period of time. The industry currently earns approximately $312 million per year and it definitely has the potential to be generating $1 billion per year by 2020 if the Government lets it. It was experiencing very rapid growth before the moratorium was put in place, but is now in danger of stagnating, and falling behind our overseas competitors.

There is also the very real possibility that would-be investors in New Zealand aquaculture will start taking their investment dollars off shore to places like Australia, South America, and Europe. However, as unfortunate as the extension of the moratorium is, United Future knows that the foreshore and seabed issue has to be resolved before any new aquaculture legislation can be completed.

Also, once the moratorium has been lifted, and all the pre-reform regulatory hurdles and structural roadblocks to growth have been removed, we are confident that the New Zealand aquaculture industry will be able to recover its rapid growth track. With the pristine New Zealand environment, and the highly profitable marketing opportunities that come with that, aquaculture investors will not be able to pass up a good thing and will come flooding back. When those further regulatory and legislative measures are put in place, as United Future we hope to see aquaculture marine areas extended to become aquaculture marine parks, so that they will be not only aquaculture marine areas developed by regional councils but they will also incorporate land-based areas as well to enable those involved in aquaculture farming to develop land-based activities necessarily connected to their marine activities that would receive the same resource consent processes as would apply to aquaculture marine areas. We will be continuing to discuss that with the Government as we approach that legislation in the New Year.

In the meantime United Future will be monitoring developments closely and we urge the Government to take all measures possible to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue and to enable this moratorium to be lifted as soon as possible. We will be supporting this bill through its first reading.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise in support of this bill, and after the previous speaker, with an eminently sensible approach to the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. This is obviously a reality that this Government is prepared to face, and I support this bill.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Following on from that contribution from Steve Chadwick I wonder whether she would also like to take the opportunity to explain why on 31 March this year Mr Pete Hodgson said: “The Government has no wish to extend the moratorium on consideration of new resource consent application for aquaculture which expires in March 2004.” He went on to say: “We still intend to ensure the aquaculture reform legislation is introduced and considered by Parliament by then.” Pete Hodgson had one of those years from hell. He was the great strategist of the Labour Party who undertook to make sure aquaculture reform legislation was presented to the House. He struck a first problem, so did the easy thing and imposed the moratorium, guaranteeing to Parliament and to the industry that under no circumstances would it be extended beyond March 2004. Here we are in December, 4 months before the expiry, and all of a sudden we are rushing through further legislation in the name of Marian Hobbs to extend the moratorium, and consequently constrain the potential of one of those really interesting industries of New Zealand. So it is no surprise to me that Mr Hodgson has not yet taken a call on this legislation, because he is as embarrassed by it as he was over the flatulence tax issue—

David Benson-Pope: He’s also in Italy.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He is so scared to present the legislation that he jumps on a plane to Italy thinking that that will be an excuse for not having to justify the extension of the moratorium. I bet while he is in Italy he will be talking about climate change. The other big embarrassment for Pete Hodgson is that he guaranteed there would be no “fart tax”. Mr Benson-Pope did not remember this. Mr Hodgson guaranteed there would be none, and then imposed the “fart tax”. Farmers got up in arms. He guaranteed there would not be a back-down, said something in Parliament to the effect that there might be a back-up. Well, a couple of weeks later, after Shane Ardern took his tractor up the steps of Parliament—dear old Myrtle—there was Mr Pete Hodgson again backing down on that, just as he is backing down tonight on his guarantee to the industry not to extend the moratorium.

Mr Benson-Pope, the senior Government whip, would be better to stop interjecting with inane comments that Mr Hodgson is on important public business in Milan as he tries to convince the Russian Prime Minister that he should rethink his commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

Without doubt the National Party will oppose this legislation, and we will do it for two reasons. The first is the issue I have just been talking about. We expected the country to believe Mr Hodgson when he stood in Parliament and in front of the industry on a number of occasions and said: “Read my lips. Legislation will not be required to extend the moratorium.” So we know how good the word of Mr Pete Hodgson is! The second reason that the National Party stands here tonight to oppose this legislation is that—

David Benson-Pope: That’s stupid.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I could not agree more; this is very stupid legislation. [Interruption] They will be whipping down shortly and asking him to shut up.

The second reason is that this Government has on a number of occasions stood in the House and said it seriously wants to address the potential decline of New Zealand’s ranking within the OECD. The economic growth rate of New Zealand is not satisfactory. The Government talked about getting us back into the top half of the OECD by 2011, and when that got a little bit difficult it forgot there was a target. Helen Clark said that, no, she had just signed a piece of paper but had not read the context. In actual fact there was no target date of 2011.

What I say is that this country has no chance at all of getting itself back into the top half of the OECD growth rankings if it continues to stifle an industry as important as aquaculture. What I hope Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have learnt after the imposition of this moratorium is that moratoriums are the easiest things in the world to impose. If one cannot see a solution to a problem, then rush down into the House and put on a moratorium—as the Government did with genetic engineering, and as it has done with aquaculture—and then think about how to get out of the moratorium.

That is where the Government has got itself into a bind. It has found it is a little harder to settle this issue—made harder by itself—because it has confused it with the seabed and foreshore ownership issues, which again Helen Clark rushed down into this House and said she would solve instantly by introducing legislation. That was months ago. As we embark on our Christmas holidays in the not-too-distant future, now we have threats from Māori, saying they are going to occupy the beaches and protest when people use the beaches. That is the reason Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have not been able to find a solution to the aquaculture issues. That is the reason we have this bill placed before us today extending the moratorium until at least the end of the next calendar year. The point I want to make justifying why nobody should support a moratorium, is about the potential that this industry has. It is a $260 million export industry, with huge potential to increase that with aquaculture sites, many, many of which are available in the Marlborough Sounds, for example—an area I know very well, but which is unable to make progress, because this Government has slapped a moratorium on permanent applications.

I listened with interest to United Future, which made the comment that would-be investors might be tempted to go off shore. Well, I can tell the United Future party tonight that I have spoken to investors who have made the decision to go off shore; they had money they wanted to invest in the New Zealand aquaculture industry, but the Government said they could not and that it was slapping on a moratorium. Those people have taken their money and gone off shore and invested in aquaculture out of New Zealand.

David Benson-Pope: That’s off shore.

Hon DAVID CARTER: David Benson-Pope laughs and says aquaculture is off shore. Well, if he thinks that is funny, I do not. I am more worried about creating wealth in New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks it is good to pass legislation that chases our investors off shore, that is his opinion but it is not mine. We have an industry that has come before Parliament, has come to the Government, and said: “Give us the chance and we could quadruple this industry in a matter of a decade.” They say it could be a billion-dollar industry, and all they need is the legislative framework to get on and do the job. But, no, this Government is so anti-business, so anti - wealth creation, that here, 9 months after a solemn promise from the Minister of Fisheries that he would not extend the moratorium, we are back in Parliament debating the issue again, extending the moratorium until the end of next year.

The Government has got this issue wrong. The Government should solve the issue around aquaculture. It should realise the potential it has for growth creation. It should solve the seabed issue, and do it with the gumption that the Prime Minister showed when the issue first arose, when she said: “We’ll change the law. We’ll clarify this issue.” But she has gone to ground ever since. The real reason we are here extending this legislation is that the Government has not resolved the foreshore and seabed issue.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. I support its further progress through the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I am privileged to represent one of the largest aquaculture centres of New Zealand, where 360—

Jill Pettis: Not for much longer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member for Whanganui speaks! What happened to the member for Whanganui’s majority at the last election?

David Benson-Pope: Stay calm! Stay calm!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Mr Benson-Pope that if he spent some time focusing on the bill, rather than playing dirty personalities in this House, this country might have a future.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s playing with the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I come back to the bill. Oh, that disgusting member who bonks boys; I do not know about him. I come back to the issue of the bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you going to deal with that, or not?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. [Interruption] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. It serves the member right for what he said earlier in the day.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. [Interruption] When I am on my feet there will be silence. The member cannot comment after he has been asked to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to speak to the bill, and to say this bill is about stopping growth in one of the most important industries for my community of Nelson. The aquaculture industry, over the last 12 or 13 years, has grown from an industry that employed a few hundred people to an industry that employs thousands. What this Government did, 2 years ago, was to introduce a moratorium that has frozen the growth of the industry. My concern is that this Government has failed to meet its own timetable, and is taking away the opportunity for communities like Nelson, and communities in other parts of the country, to be able to grow and create wealth.

That brings us immediately to the mess that the Government has made of the foreshore and seabed issue. If there is any area in which this Government has failed to provide leadership, it is on that issue. This is a country in which much depends on fishing and the ocean environment in terms of wealth creation, yet this Government is prepared to see the aquaculture industry subject to huge uncertainty in terms of the legal rights in that marine space. This aquaculture moratorium simply engages those involved in the industry in further uncertainty. People in the aquaculture industry have said to me that they feel under siege on every single front. Whether it is with regard to the Resource Management Act, the moratorium, or the foreshore and seabed issue, this Government is killing one of our most important growth opportunities.

I would like to know from the next Government speaker just what the Government’s policy is in terms of the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Over the last 6 months, we have had a different position every month. We firstly had the position that the Government would legislate for the foreshore and seabed to be owned by the Crown. The Government then changed from that position. The latest idea is that the Government will provide special legislation whereby there will be customary title for iwi around New Zealand. What does that mean for the hundreds of New Zealanders who invest their livelihoods in that industry? What does it mean for them? It means more uncertainty—and uncertainty that is provided by this Government.

This bill is also further evidence of the Government’s mess within the Resource Management Act. Only earlier today we were debating the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Bill, which creates a separate set of rules just for the Government, so that it can build the largest hydro scheme in New Zealand for 30 years. Why does the Government on the one hand want to fast track legislation so it can build six dams on the Waitaki River, yet on the other hand now want to freeze the development of the aquaculture industry? That is mistaken, and it is preferential treatment. Quite frankly, more growth for New Zealand would be derived from developing the aquaculture industry in a sustainable way than from building more dams on the Waitaki River. We should take that economic opportunity, and not extend this moratorium further.

My colleague David Carter has raised the issue of what has changed. Only earlier this year, the Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson, gave an absolute commitment to this House that the moratorium would not be extended. Well, how many more times will it be extended? I will put money on it that before this legislation expires, there will be another moratorium extension bill, and the industry will be frozen again in terms of its growth.

I also want to point out the erroneous approach taken in this bill in terms of the applications that are already in the system. Do members know that only 34 hectares of new marine farms have been approved during the term of this Government? That is a freezing of the industry, and I want to know why it is not possible for districts like Tasman, which have well-developed resource management plans, to implement those plans and allow that sustainable industry to grow. Why is it that the Government, through Pete Hodgson and its other Ministers, wants to overrule the Tasman District Council, which is all ready to go and has spent millions of dollars on sorting out the rules for the development of aquaculture in the Nelson region, and specifically in Tasman Bay and Golden Bay. Why is it that this Government, which gives us repeated lectures about self-government and about local government being able to make local decisions, in the run-up to Christmas is then running a bill through the House that cuts completely across local decision-making and allowing the aquaculture industry to be able to get on and grow?

I say to the Ministers and Government members that they have failed. The Government has failed; Labour has failed. I ask United Future why it is joining the Labour Government in this failure. This Government has had 2 years to sort out a proper process for considering aquaculture. Why is it that for 2 years the Government has not been able to get its act together to meet its own timetable, and is now further freezing the industry? I would like to know whether the Ministry for Economic Development has worked out how many jobs and export dollars this bill will cost New Zealand. It will be a matter of hundreds of jobs and of millions of dollars of lost export earnings for this country. Now, I know Government members do not seem to give a hoot about creating wealth for this country, and are quite happy to see our standard of living continue to decline relative to that of countries like Australia. The reason it is continuing to decline is that the Government is advancing legislation of this sort, which takes away opportunities for New Zealand to create wealth.

The last point I wish to make is this, and it is a challenge to the Māori MPs within this Government. Not one of those members has chosen to participate in this debate, yet the largest number of the applications that are to be frozen under this aquaculture moratorium legislation are from iwi—from Māori. So for all the weasel words from the Labour Government about supporting wealth creation amongst Māori and iwi, here is a bill that will freeze those Māori organisations out of the industry for another year, when they have already been frozen out for 2 years. I want to ask the member for Rotorua why that is.

Steve Chadwick: Because that member from Marlborough—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually I am not from Marlborough; the member should get her geography right. I would say it is because that member and her colleagues have not advanced a sensible set of rules. Māori are being denied jobs and the opportunity to be able to create wealth, and it is a tragedy for Māori and for all New Zealanders. I say to the member for Rotorua that she should stand up, take a call, and defend this nonsense. This Government has failed, and the member for Banks Peninsula has failed. The Government has failed to provide a sensible framework for the development of this industry.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There’s a very successful deputy leader on his feet.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That member wants to get personal. He does not argue the issue or get to his feet to talk about aquaculture. The only thing that member is good at is bullying and driving down standards in education. He has been successful in that; he is driving down standards in education. He is also good at wrecking personalities, but he will never achieve anything constructive in this House. It is a pity that he did not, as Minister, apply his time to the aquaculture law, so that he could create some wealth and jobs for ordinary New Zealanders.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a first time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by Monday, 1 March 2004.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): I move, That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I will recommend to the House that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and for reporting back to the House by 19 March 2004. The States Services Commissioner currently has statutory responsibility for collective bargaining for employees of school boards of trustees. This bill gives the commissioner the associated bargaining tools available to employers under the Employment Relations Act, including the power to discontinue the pay of striking employees. It does not stop schools funding strikers from locally raised or operational funding if they choose to do so. The bill also includes provisions to limit the payment of redundancy compensation to employees affected when schools merge or close, in order to make sure that teachers are not paid twice for the same period of time. It also ensures that principals in those merged schools are appointed on merit. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): The National Party will be opposing the bill. That is not just because Trevor Mallard put it up, although that is a good reason. The reason I say that is because this bill is more bully-boy tactics. This legislation should be a warning to people who think that Trevor Mallard does not like them or what they do. If he does not like them, he will take up the time of the House in passing legislation that will give him a bigger stick to beat them with, and that is what this bill is about. In this case, it happens that I share some of his views about the Post Primary Teachers Association, but not all of them, and I certainly do not share enough of those views to support this legislation.

This bill would be more correctly called “Last Year’s Strike Revenge Bill”, because that Minister was put on the political rack by the secondary teachers, by the Post Primary Teachers Association itself, and by his own colleagues. He had eroded the traditionally close relationship between Labour and the Post Primary Teachers Association so much that even in the face of an election, it would not settle. That damaged Trevor Mallard’s credibility permanently. Every night on television, parents saw teachers and children marching. They saw anger and bitterness, and the escalation of those feelings whenever he went into the room to negotiate.

This year he has decided to get all the sticks lined up for next year, and here it is. The State Services Commissioner will now have all the usual rights, duties, and powers of an employer for the purpose of, or in relation to, collective agreement negotiations. I congratulate the Minister on at least being upfront. He does not hide behind bureaucratic terminology. The explanatory note states: “This includes the power to discontinue the pay of striking Board employees and to suspend or lock out Board employees …”. That is pretty straight up. I congratulate the Minister—he did not mince his words. Everyone knows how big the stick will be. I want to tell the Minister that it is already having the effect that one would expect. Post Primary Teachers Association union meetings are reflecting at least the same level of bitterness as the last time. In the very short time I have been the education spokesman—about 3 weeks—I have been amazed that in the staffrooms of New Zealand, the National Party spokesman is more respected, less hated, and more welcome than the Minister of Education. This legislation will only make the gap grow.

The real problem is that Trevor Mallard might be putting the bill through so that he can beat the teachers with a big stick—and beat them a lot harder than last time—but the Labour Government, as a whole, sees it as a logical move back to centralised control of our education system. The normal rights and duties of an employer are to hire and fire. It will not be very long before the Government decides that not only are boards incapable of making judgments about whether to pay their teachers, they are also not very capable of making judgments about which ones to hire. That is worse than the bad old days of the Education Board. It will be back to the States Services Commissioner.

I have no doubt at all that within the term of this Government there will be another State Sector Amendment Bill appropriating more powers to the State Services Commission over our schools and the teachers in them. I know that because I know that the Post Primary Teachers Association will again give Mr Mallard a run for his money in the next industrial round. It will humiliate him again, because this bill will not make much difference. If Mr Mallard is going to go out there beating his chest with this kind of legislation, he had better have the political will to follow through. I can just see the eminently flexible Ms Helen Clark sitting in her Cabinet meetings saying: “Trevor, I know you said you’d lock them out if they went on strike, but I lost two points in the last poll and the Opposition spokesman on education is running rampant. Trevor, I just want you to back off.” This legislation feels good now, but by the middle of next year the Labour Party will wish it had never passed it—just as its members will wish they had never thought of school network reviews.

I have some advice for the Minister: why does he not get an assessment from that psychologist at the Ministry of Education who said that our children were being damaged. The children I saw were orderly, forthright, and articulate, but I can see that the Minister is clearly under psychological stress. He shouts, he abuses people, he puts them down at public meetings, and he threatens to walk out if they disagree with him. If I were the Minister, I would spend less time worrying about technical redundancies in school mergers and closures and more time looking after his own psychological welfare. The pressure is only just beginning. Parents are starting to realise, as I have told them, that he is just a bully. No one is holding a gun to people’s heads, it is not inevitable, and their successful school of 250 does not have to be closed. The next time Trevor Mallard turns up, people do not feel quite so fearful.

There will be some issues that the select committee will have to deal with, but here is the beauty of creative spin. This bill gives the Minister the power to lock out teachers and stop paying them, because boards kept paying them when they were on strike. Members should look at clause 6, “Amendment to section 65A of Education Act 1989”. It provides that during the course of a strike or lockout, the school is deemed to be open for instruction. When the Government locks teachers out, the school is open. If any other employer locks out employees, the workplace is locked out—there is no one working there. But in the newspeak of this Government, when teachers are locked out, there are no children and teachers are not getting any pay, but the school is deemed to be open.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s exactly what the member did.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister should get up and tell us why that is the case. If that is already the case, then why is the Minister going to pass this legislation? It must be different, or he would not be passing this legislation, at all, so I look forward to the scrap. This is a case of both pistols being drawn at sixty paces on the left—the Post Primary Teachers Association versus Trevor Mallard.

Simon Power: It’s going to be nasty.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is going to be nasty, because there is one of him and there are thousands of them. Their average pay is already over $60,000, so they will not have all the public backing they would expect. In fact, the information for the Government Superannuation scheme tells us that the average secondary teacher’s pay is $65,000, so they cannot expect everyone to be behind them. But nor can Trevor Mallard, because, as parents, we know that this legislation signals that he is in for a last stand with the Post Primary Teachers Association this time. If he thought he was in a better position, he would not need these powers.

That will be the sideshow, but the big game is the continued move back to a centralised, bureaucratic education system, where the Minister, apparently, is the model of all standards and decision-making capabilities. He is the model, he is widely acknowledged as such in the country, and this is all about him making decisions for our children.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): Mr English might think that the public has amnesia, but I want to assure him that they do not. The teaching profession, in particular, remembers only too well what National Parties have done to it in the past. This is a very good bill, and we need to get on and pass it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I make a quick reference to statements made by the new National spokesperson on education, Bill English. I have to point out to him that when secondary teachers went on strike during the arguments over the 1996 collective contract, on the days they withdrew their labour, it was considered that schools were open for instruction.

Hon Bill English: They were getting paid.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: No, they were not getting paid.

Hon Bill English: The boards were paying them.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: No, the boards do not pay teachers, and they did not pay them then—they were paid through a centralised system. During that time, the open-for-instruction situation was not applied. I can also tell members that there were hardly any strikes—none in terms of collective contracts—during the time that Wyatt Creech and myself were in the education portfolio together.

One of the very few strikes was a wildcat strike by a school in Auckland. When we came into Government with National, the bulk funding issue was swirling angrily through the educational fraternity, and the board of trustees of a secondary school in Auckland was looking seriously at whether it could become bulk funded. The staff decided to go on a wildcat strike. They walked out and kids were told to go home. Then the staff went to the board of trustees—the strike was illegal—and said they wanted the board to ensure that they were paid, in order to demonstrate the board’s goodwill towards them. Even though they had withdrawn their labour, the staff still believed that the board should not write to the ministry and tell it to deduct their pay. If the board did so, the staff said they would go on strike.

That is the situation boards have been caught up in, and boards are much closer to the immediate communities the schools serve. They are much closer to staff than Governments are. For example, boards do not have to see the big picture in terms of educational expenditure, so are reluctant to upset the staffs they have to work with on a day-to-day basis. So I understand that boards have been caught between a rock and a hard place, but it is unfortunately true that many of them did not write to the ministry to say which members should have had their pay deducted.

It was even worse when the Post Primary Teachers Association started to use the rostering-off system, where they said, for example, that on a certain day teachers would not teach third-formers. That meant that boards of trustees had to go through the whole staff to work out which teachers’ timetables for teaching third-formers on that day to take, and how many periods they took. Then they had to go off to the ministry and say: “Look, you have to deduct this number of hours from this teacher, and this number from another teacher, etc.” Once again, boards were very reluctant to do it, and rostering-off was a very powerful industrial tool.

We recognised that in 1998, and we nipped it in the bud before it even got under way. The Post Primary Teachers Association threatened it, and I put out a press release to say to parents that if they did not send their children to school under those circumstances, they were in breach of the law. Paul Holmes picked it up, and we had an interview with Martin Cooney. I did not have to do much work, because Paul Holmes did most of it for me. He did a snow job on Martin Cooney, and the very next day the association withdrew its threats of that sort of action. A day later, Martin Cooney resigned his president’s position with the Post Primary Teachers Association—notice of which, I think, made it probably the best press release I ever put out during my time as Associate Minister of Education.

But Bill English was right about something—2002 was appalling. Industrial relations, and its ongoing effects on students in our secondary schools, were absolutely appalling. We have to look at that and ask ourselves whether we are prepared to put up with that sort of carry-on yet again. Secondary teachers must be the only group in this country who believe that they should be able to withdraw their labour and get paid at the same time. There is nothing moral, ethical, or uplifting about that sort of belief or position.

At an area school in the 1980s, and as Post Primary Teachers Association members, we went on strike, but we did not withdraw our labour. We continued to teach to ensure that students did not lose their day’s learning. We then donated our money to the Post Primary Teachers Association.

Hon Bill English: Did the kids notice?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Yes, they noticed. They thought it was a wonderful self-sacrifice by the teachers at the time. Nowadays, teachers want to walk out and still be paid. We were prepared to continue to work and give up our day’s pay to make the point we were making at that time.

Hon Bill English: Did it work?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Stan Rodger was putting through the State Sector Act at that time—I think that was the issue—and no, it did not work. The Act still went through, so that was a waste of money.

Nevertheless, I say to the Minister that this bill is reactive. Certainly the Government’s performance in handling the round the last time did not bring it great honour, and it must be done far better this time. The legislation is reactive in terms of the specifics of how the Government can deal with the next pay round, but in this particular case it does not overcome the systemic flaws in the adversarial industrial arrangement between the Government and teachers. There is a unique, quite idiosyncratic relationship there. The industrial relations arrangement is simply inadequate in terms of being able to handle things, and it certainly leads to a continuation of angst and unhappiness. We cannot have a constructive teaching force that is continuously in that state of low morale.

New Zealand First will vote for this bill. We believe that in the best interests of the education system we have to have it. We cannot have an environment like the one that existed in 2002 going on into the 2004 round—simply for the well-being of education. The days lost from the education of those students will never be made up. They cannot be—they are lost opportunities to the nation. New Zealand First believes that we need to look at the whole industrial model around which we negotiate teachers’ salaries, compared with the one we have at the moment. I do not think that anybody can consider that that model has worked well in the past.

We believe that the actions taken by certain teachers—not necessarily endorsed by the Post Primary Teachers Association—who withdrew their labour and still expected to be paid, were absolutely unethical and immoral. I am surprised that the National Party is supporting that form of unethical, immoral behaviour by some of our teaching staff. Therefore, we will support the Government in this part of the bill.

I want to talk about one other aspect of the bill—the closure of schools. An important point is being made in this case, but I want to refer to the fact that this Government is hell-bent on closing schools whether they want to be closed or not.

We have a situation up in Northland where a school wants to be closed and the ministry will not close it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which one?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It is Taipuha. Having had extensive consultation with its community—it is down to seven kids—the school wrote on 3 or 4 August and said it wanted to be closed. About 2 months later, the ministry comes along and says it has to go through a process. The school wants to make sure that it is closed in time to get its kids into a new school for next year, but no, this Minister will not do that. He is too busy out there closing the schools that do not want to be closed, and this is a school that wants to be closed.

I have to point out to the Minister that he really needs to sort out his ministry’s act, and that of some of the people in it. If that closure is not gazetted 28 days before the opening of schools for next year, those students will be left in a helluva mess. They will have to stay at the school they were at, with no transport arrangements. It will cost the taxpayers additional money, because the teachers’ salaries will still have to be paid, even though they want to move on into the next part of the thing. So I say to the Minister that he had better sort out that part of the ministry’s act.

In terms of this particular legislation, however, what is in there is sensible. With the merging of schools, a number of small schools coulld merge into one and the principals of each of those schools might not have the requisite educational leadership or administrative skills to be able to professionally lead the larger institution that is formed. Under existing legislation, one of those principals has to get the job. Under this legislation, where a large school and a small school merge, and the principal of the larger school does not want the job, the principal of the smaller school—who might not have the experience to carry that job—does not get it.

The educational leadership role of principals in schools is so critical and important that it is wise—and New Zealand First agrees with the Government on this one—that that position be advertised when we have these school reorganisations. New Zealand First agrees with the decisions that have been made by the Government in this particular case, and we will be supporting this bill.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I rise to speak on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) on behalf of the Green Party, and to inform the House that the Greens will be supporting this bill to the select committee. We have made no commitment to support the bill further than that, but we think it should go to the select committee so that we can hear the submissions and work through the numerous issues in the bill.

We think there is some merit in the bill, particularly from the point of view of school boards, and Brian Donnelly has already canvassed some of those points. It is clear that school boards are increasingly responsible for the administrative management of schools. Those functions take precious hours from committed volunteers—hours that would otherwise be devoted to the educational needs of the schools and the children who attend them. Recent changes in the provision of school housing, for example, have put a significantly greater administrative burden on schools, while putting school boards in an additional power relationship with their employees—that is, the teachers they work with.

It is important that members in this House remember that boards of trustees are volunteers from the community. Some of them have management responsibilities in their jobs and day-to-day lives, but if a board is to be truly representative of its community, many of those trustees will be ordinary mums and dads. Many of them will never have had to bear the responsibilities peculiar to the role of an employer, and it can take a real toll on the individuals put into those positions. People put themselves forward for those roles because they are committed to their school and to the best educational outcomes for their children, and they have to deal with significant and serious management issues in the role they have taken on.

The Greens have a great deal of sympathy for school trustees, and for the boards that did not dock teachers’ pay during past industrial disputes, because they had a genuine and legitimate desire to maintain good relations with their staff. We think it is a significant obligation to place on boards, especially if they are supporting the teachers during an industrial dispute. Those disputes, of course, are not between teachers and the school, but between teachers and the Government, and boards have had to deal with being in the middle of those disputes. Schools and boards bear the effects of the disputes, but they have no role in managing them through to a satisfactory and expeditious conclusion. We think there is real merit in removing the obligations on boards to dock pay. It would be helpful to school trustees and to the boards, because they would not have to take up that responsibility and face the conflict that then develops in their relationship with their teachers.

It is also true that teachers who strike should expect to have their pay docked, which is one of the trade-offs of industrial action. No one wants to have his or her pay docked under any circumstances, of course. It is a hard world and people struggle, and teaching is not exactly an overpaid profession. But in industrial disputes it is one of the costs recognised by unions and unionised workers. The fact is that the pay will be docked within the current process for industrial disputes. Whether it is done by the board or by the ministry, this bill does not alter that basic fact.

The Greens also agree with the position of the Post Primary Teachers Association on many issues, and in particular that this seems especially punitive and unnecessary legislation on the part of the Minister. We think the Minister could be concentrating on lots of other more useful things in the education portfolio than simply reorganising who takes the money off the teachers. The education system remains under-resourced, and we draw particular attention to the area of special needs. The devotion of ministerial resources to that and other educational areas should be a greater priority, notwithstanding that some aspects of this bill have merit. We think the Minister could have been spending his time on more constructive things.

We have a number of particular problems with the bill. One of them is around the new powers of the commissioner. We completely disagree with the power the commissioner will have to fine boards that do not provide information about which of their teachers are on strike. That provision is disgraceful. It takes money out of the school budget for an administrative purpose that is not related to the provision of quality education to our children. That punitive action against schools is completely inappropriate.

As I have already foreshadowed, we are voting the bill to the select committee. We expect to see some amendments made there, and we have made no commitment beyond that. Some members say the Greens should be voting against the bill, but I do not see that as a reasonable position to take. A more constructive position would be to support the bill to select committee and then seek amendments on the areas we disagree with. I note that Mr Rodney Hide said that the best reason for opposing the bill was because it was put up by Mr Mallard. I realise it is the end of the year and people are getting scratchy, but that is exactly the kind of thing that makes the public of this country look at this House and ask what we are doing. Let us engage with the issues.

The Greens look forward to hearing the various views on this bill at the select committee stage. We hope to hear rigorous submissions—particularly from school trustees—so we can get a very clear picture of what this legislation will mean for them in practice, and amendments can be made accordingly. The Greens will be supporting this bill at the first reading.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT): I am not surprised that voters keep coming up to Nandor Tanczos to ask him what he is doing here. He started his speech by saying that the Greens are going to support this bill, and that they have made a commitment to support it all the way. That is what Hansard will record him as saying. Then he went through his speech and convinced me that this bill is bad. He went all the way through his speech saying how bad the bill was, then said he was going to support it, having convinced me that it is bad.

I must also admit that I look at every bill Trevor Mallard introduces into this House and think: “This will be a bad bill.” He has never disappointed me yet. I am amazed as I go around the schools of New Zealand to hear teachers say: “We didn’t like him when he was a teacher, and he is worse, now that he is a Minister.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which schools? Name one.

RODNEY HIDE: Do not deny it. Can anyone find a teacher who likes Trevor Mallard? I cannot. Everywhere I go they say: “He was not a very nice man when he was a teacher, and he has not improved in the Labour Party.”, which I can understand. When one looks across at the Labour caucus, one sees that it is not something to make one feel bright, cheery, and optimistic about the human condition.

But let us go back to Trevor Mallard. I say to Mr English that this is what we might call a bully-boy bill, from a man who was going to fix the rugby union with a bottle in the right place. This is his approach to public policy: the teachers go on strike; where is that bottle? Well, he is not allowed to say that in front of Helen Clark, so he comes down to the House with a bill that says: “Oh, the person who I tell what to do can stop the pay of the teachers if I want it to be stopped.” That is what this bill says. [Interruption] I say to Mr Donnelly that, yes, it does. If they go on strike their pay will be stopped.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Only if they go on strike.

RODNEY HIDE: That is true. But there is another option.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Getting as bad as Nandor.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If you shared the haircut, you would look all right.

RODNEY HIDE: I do not know what is in that tie, but I am feeling a bit woozy.

What do we have boards of trustees for? To run the schools. We have a misalignment here of the decision to run the school and the pay, and the decision about whether teachers’ pay can be stopped if they go on strike. We have two options here. As Mr English pointed out, one is to shift more power to the centre, to the Government, which is the Trevor Mallard option—“I know best; let me have the power with the State Services Commissioner”—versus the option of giving more power, authority, and control to the boards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Bulk funding.

RODNEY HIDE: Absolutely!

Hon Brian Donnelly: They would deduct it if it was bulk funded.

RODNEY HIDE: They would not need this bill. So why do we not put the money across to the board of trustees and have the board pay the teachers? Then the board would have the authority to stop the pay. Is that not what we expect a board of trustees to do?

What we have is this mad situation where we pretend that the board is running the school—but the Government is paying all the salaries. Then, if teachers go on strike, Trevor Mallard has to ring the State Services Commissioner to stop the poor teachers’ pay. In fact, the teachers are not in dispute with the board that employs them but with the Government that does not employ them. That is the madness of this bill. So why do we not come to the logical conclusion, and say: “If the board is going to employ the teachers, why not give them the money to pay this?”. Would that not solve it? But Trevor Mallard would hate that. The thing a bully boy wants all the time is the bottle. He wants the bottle. He wants to have the power. He has to have the big hammer to throw around.

Simon Power: He wants to be the king of the Heinekens.

RODNEY HIDE: He wants to be the king of the Heinekens in order to be the bully boy.

Of course, if we did the logical thing and started trusting New Zealanders, started trusting parents, started trusting boards of trustees—indeed, let us be perfectly frank, started trusting teachers—we would devolve the payment of teachers to the board. We would allow the board to run a school, and we would not have this legislation handed down. Imagine what would happen in New Zealand. We would have some responsibility and accountability.

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is the speech I want to send to the PPTA.

RODNEY HIDE: I would love Trevor Mallard to give this speech to the Post Primary Teachers Association. If he gave that speech, then came to the House with this legislation, he would have National Party support. He would have the New Zealand First Party’s support, I think—no?—he would have the ACT party’s support, and, depending on what tie Nandor Tanczos was wearing, he might get Green Party support.

Opposition Member : What about United Future?

RODNEY HIDE: United Future would vote for it. Of course, we still have not heard from Craig McNair. Craig McNair should speak. He has just left school and he can tell us what it is really like. I am surprised Darren Hughes is not here, because he has just left school.

Simon Power: What do you mean? He’s on his school holidays.

RODNEY HIDE: At 9 o’clock he is at home, in bed.

But why does this Minister not trust boards of trustees with the responsibility to pay teachers? Why will he not trust boards of trustees with the responsibility to run schools? Why will he not trust parents to look after, in their communities, the best interests of their children? Why will this Minister not allow some freedom and responsibility, some diversity and choice? Why is it that at every opportunity Trevor Mallard comes to this House and says: “Give me more power. Give me more control. Let me walk around as the king of the schools.”?

I think it is revenge time for this Minister. I think there are some old headmasters, from the days when he was a schoolteacher, whom he has to settle a score with. He has got out the Heineken bottle, or something, because he wants the power.

Here is a question for Mr English. I ask him whether he can remember a Minister of Education who was more disliked.

Hon Bill English: No.

RODNEY HIDE: Never—and in the shortest time possible.

Hon Bill English: He’s more disliked that the Hon Merv Wellington.

RODNEY HIDE: I can hardly remember Merv Wellington. He is more disliked than the Hon Merv Wellington.

John Carter: He’s dead.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, I never had the pleasure of meeting him. But this Minister of Education, in the short time he has been Minister, has managed to alienate more schools, more boards of trustees, and more teachers than any other Minister of Education I have witnessed. I am staggered that he is coming down to this House with a bill to give Michael Wintringham the power to stop teachers’ pay. What the hang has that got to do with Michael Wintringham? What does a school’s management have to do with him? I cannot figure that out. The Minister never explained it. He walked into this House and mumbled something about: “The teachers really annoyed me last time because they went on strike, and the boards seemed to like them, and I had to keep paying, and that gives teachers too much power. I want the State Services Commissioner to have the opportunity to cut their pay if they go on strike.”

How many times does it have to be said? It could be fixed simply by saying that we have boards of trustees. They run the schools. We should give them the money to pay the teachers. If the teachers go on strike it is against the board, is it not? It is not against the State Services Commissioner, for goodness’ sake. Let the boards sort it out. That is what happens in the good schools in New Zealand.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): United Future will support the first reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We do not think it is fair to put boards of trustees in the kinds of difficulties in which they found themselves during the last negotiating round for the secondary school teachers’ contract, particularly when it continued for such a protracted period of time. As we know, it was up to each board to decide whether to dock the pay of each teacher taking industrial action. But many boards were very sympathetic towards teachers’ claims, especially since the boards included representatives of teaching staff and students, as well as principals. In cases where the board did decide to dock pay that often created tension within the board, and between the board and the staff, and had the potential to continue to impinge on other spheres of school life. There was a lot of inconsistency across schools about whether their teachers were facing any financial consequences for their actions, and that created inequity amongst teachers as to who was getting paid and who was not.

This bill, I believe, tidies up yet another inequity. Although teachers have the same ability as other employees to take industrial action, they do not face the same consequences if there is no guarantee they will face the same kinds of sanctions as other employees. I think that this bill attempts to take boards of trustees out of the equation by transferring their employer functions to the State Services Commission. However, it relies on boards informing the State Services Commission, and some of the feedback from boards since this bill was introduced suggests that their sympathy with the teachers might extend to sending false returns about how many staff are actually teaching. The select committee will need to look at how that is going to work in practice, and it would be very useful to listen to the School Trustees Association about the feasibility of such requirements.

On another matter, and it has been raised, I bring the attention of the House to clause 5, which relates to redundancy resulting from school mergers and/or closures—a very topical issue at the moment. Although each board is still a separate employer, in the case of a merger or closure an employee may be offered a similar position by another board in the same locality, but without the need for the board to comply with the provisions of the Act that require employers to advertise vacancies and give preference to persons who best suit that position. I am very sympathetic to teachers, and indeed communities, who face the prospects of school closures or mergers, but I believe that schools recruiting teachers should have the merit of the applicants uppermost in their minds. I, too, invite the select committee to investigate the issue of selecting teachers on merit, rather than just by region, in its consideration of the bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to support the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). It corrects an anomaly that can arise out of the mergers of schools and the treatment of employees by boards of trustees, so I am pleased to support this bill.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I am pleased about Steve Chadwick’s speech, as there were a couple of things I did not understand in this bill and she has clarified them. This is not really a bill as such; it is more a document that confirms a divorce. It confirms that the cosy relationship between Trevor Mallard and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) has finally come to an end. This Minister—

Hon Trevor Mallard: A former regional secretary.

SIMON POWER: That is right. This Minister was widely reported, prior to 1999, as being the darling of the teachers unions. He was going to be the Minister who would make everything all right and chase away the allegedly bad policies of the 1990s. Teachers today are being asked to sign the divorce papers between Trevor Mallard and the PPTA; the marriage of convenience is over. It went through a rocky patch in 2002 during the National Certificate of Educational Achievement strikes, but what this bill is really doing is allowing the Minister, by way of legislation, essentially to put the boot into his ex-partner. Essentially, this legislation will say to the PPTA that the honeymoon is over and the Minister is coming after it. It has taken a while for the Minister to show his colours on this issue, but that is, as Bill English has said, absolutely black and white.

Before we get into the detail of the bill, I just say that the contribution by Bernie Ogilvy was just extraordinary. It was extraordinary that Bernie Ogilvy said United Future was going to support this bill. If I heard Marc Alexander from that same party correctly, he said in this House once that the party is anti-bureaucracy and anti-limits—

Bernie Ogilvy: We are extraordinary.

SIMON POWER: The member says that United Future is supporting it. How can a party be anti-bureaucracy and vote for a bill that recentralises power to a Government department—to a Government commissioner? That makes no sense, at all. But, worse than that, Mr Ogilvy’s colleague Murray Smith is running around the school review meetings, standing on the platform, and saying things like he has no respect for Trevor Mallard and the way he is dealing with the school review closures. Murray Smith has said he does not want to be associated with what is going on in the Government’s education policy. Yet now, when we come down to the House and members on the Opposition side are thinking Murray Smith has put a line in the sand on behalf of United Future, by saying he does not want to be associated with Trevor Mallard and has no respect for his education agenda, Bernie Ogilvy gets up and says that United Future will be voting for the bill.

Richard Worth: I can’t believe it.

SIMON POWER: Well, I say to Mr Ogilvy that that is extraordinary.

I give Bernie Ogilvy this promise: at the next election, I look forward to the United Future candidate standing on the platform in Rangitikei next to me, and explaining United Future’s education policy to the assembled masses. Government members should hope he takes their side, and not Murray Smith’s side. The population is confused about United Future’s view on this bill. I say to Mr Ogilvy that it is not too late. When the vote is taken he can change his mind, show some consistency, and, for goodness’ sake, back Murray Smith. He should not leave him out there dangling—[Interruption] Jill Pettis fires up again. There she goes again—the seagull caught in the clothesline. Jill Pettis is away again. I just say that I was at Kapuni School last week, talking about its school review. When I asked what Jill Pettis was doing to represent the school’s interests to the Minister of Education with regard to the south Egmont review, people asked what I meant.

Hon Trevor Mallard: More than that member has ever done in Taihape.

SIMON POWER: Trevor Mallard should hang on, because he will be interested in this. I asked what Jill Pettis had said when she had gone to the school. I was asked what I meant. I asked again what Jill Pettis had said when she had gone to Kapuni School to discuss the review. The people there said she had never been there to discuss the review. I said that could not be right, because although I did not agree with all Jill Pettis’ politics, she was pretty industrious. But, no, they said she had never been there. They said they thought she had driven through Kapuni in a car once, but that she had never been to the school. I thought that was just extraordinary.

This bill is interesting, because it comes at a time in the political cycle when, in the second term of this Labour Government, it is beginning to reflect some of the things that are going on in the second term of the Labour Government in the UK. The second term is when Labour starts to knock around its traditional supporters. We are seeing that with Tony Blair. If I were a traditional Labour Party supporter, and if I were one of the Government members who owes his or her place in the caucus to the PPTA, I would be looking at the situations vacant column about now. The PPTA will not back any of the teachers union - backed members of Parliament sitting on the Government benches when the next election rolls around.

Rodney Hide was right on the button when he said we do not need legislation that recentralises bureaucratic control into the hands of the State Services Commissioner. What boards need is a whole lot of freedom and flexibility to be able to do whatever they need to do in order to ensure the one thing that is missing from this bill—the one thing that is not mentioned in it—which is the quality of the education that is provided to the students in schools. There is not one mention of the educational standards that would be met by implementing this legislation—not one mention of what it means for school kids, students, and pupils throughout New Zealand. That is disappointing, because that does make this a vengeful piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation whereby Trevor Mallard is now saying to the Post Primary Teachers Association that time is up, that he does not need its support any more, and that next time the Government will deal with it through the State Services Commission with regard to rectifying industrial disputes.

When I had a quick look through the bill one of the interesting things I saw was that the purposes of the bill seemed to me to be all over the show. A bit of a mishmash of reasons has been put together in this legislation. Clause 3(a) enables the State Services Commissioner to negotiate collective agreements. Clause 3(b) requires the unions representing the board to give prior notice of a proposed strike, and clause 3(c) requires the boards to report to the State Services Commissioner. Well, that is just what volunteers, parents, and members of communities with big hearts need, when they go on school boards: more reporting requirements! What we would like to see in legislation are provisions that would allow communities and school trustees to get on with the business of providing a quality education to the students and pupils of their schools, rather than requiring them to fill out more forms when dealing with the State Services Commissioner, and having to answer to another Government agency in the form of the State Services Commissioner.

Then the purpose clause goes on to preclude compensation for technical redundancies around the school reviews. Much of that territory has been covered by Brian Donnelly, but I will just say this: during the school review process we should concentrate on modelling and copying schools that are doing well—schools that are succeeding. It is a real problem when schools are not succeeding, and that is the type of difficulty that this legislation should address. When the Hon Bill English led off the debate for the National Party, he made that point very clearly when he said that we would be opposing the bill for those reasons. I tell Bernie Ogilvy to talk to Murray Smith. Murray Smith does not want to vote for this bill, and that member should have checked with him before he pledged United Future’s support to push this bill on towards a select committee.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I have nothing to say to the representative of the 26 or 23 percent party. We have heard a speech of absolute opportunism. I support this bill. I wish it full speed to the select committee. It is a good, fair, and consistent bill. I support this bill.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): If I was to stand before this House tonight and tell members that this bill is a complete and utter disgrace, and that the Minister should be ashamed of it, members would not be surprised that that was coming from the National Party. But I could be speaking on behalf of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), because the PPTA also finds this bill a disgrace. What is more, it has read the Labour Party manifesto. It has read the bits about partnership. The words that one sees in the Labour Party manifesto are about partnership, and working hand-in-hand with the community. But this Government is not in such a partnership. This Government reeks of arrogance; it bathes in it. The Government is telling the PPTA that because it does not like what the association is doing—standing up for its people—it will change the legislation.

The last Labour Minister whom we saw come into this House with such an arrogant view was the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. He came into this House and said: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. That went down like a cup of cold sick with the public of New Zealand, in just the same way that this legislation will go down. The Minister of Education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, is now coming to this House and saying: “You won. I lost. Beat this!”. That is what he is doing. In this bill, called the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3), he is changing the rules of the game because he cannot beat the PPTA. The PPTA had a very valid argument, indeed. It had the argument that teachers are underpaid in this country. Good teachers are not being paid what they deserve, and we know that they deserve a great deal more. This is just a classic example of what we have seen from the Labour Government since it has been in power, which is a continuation and an expansion of the nanny State.

We can see the nanny State wherever we look. We have seen it in the health sector, with primary health organisations being rolled out all over the place to give free health-care, whether that is to millionaires or to people who really need it. We have seen it in accident compensation, where we had a perfectly operating private sector. But this Government came in and said that no, the private sector might be doing very well, might know how accident compensation works best, and might be able to deliver results for New Zealanders that were proven to work, but Labour would still nationalise it. We have seen it in the area of superannuation, with the “Cullen fund”. Labour does not trust New Zealanders. The Labour Government’s message is that it does not trust New Zealanders to save for and invest in their own retirement, so it is delivering the wholesale “Cullen fund” and sending 85 percent of it off shore, so we do not even invest in our own country—in our own people and the very businesses that drive economic growth in this country. That is what Labour is doing.

Here, lo and behold, exactly the same principles are to operate in education. I am very surprised at that, because today the OECD released a 159-page report that told the people of New Zealand the policies of the current Labour Government are failing. They are failing in all sorts of areas, and education is one of them. So when I see this bill, I can tell members that I know it is a very sad day, indeed. The Government cannot win the argument, cannot believe in the boards of trustees and the people who are engaged in delivering education in our society, and thinks it does not have the competency, the skills, or the ability to win the argument. So the Government has got the sledgehammer out and, in a very arrogant way, has delivered legislation that it thinks is the king hit.

I would suggest that if Trevor Mallard has the guts to front up at the PPTA annual general meeting next year, he will find a very different president from the one who probably welcomed him in 1999. This president has stated in his own annual report: “It is time to find another Minister to take education forward.” When someone’s own people have turned on a person, that person knows he or she is in the schtuck. One knows one is in serious trouble when one’s own people turn on one. That is the sort of reception that will await this Minister of Education when he fronts up—that is, presuming he does front up.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is making it up.

JOHN KEY: The member is not making it up. The member is reading an accurate statement, which he is happy to present to the House at any particular time.

If this Government was more positive, the people of New Zealand would have a brighter hope. But yesterday in the House we had members argue that New Zealand could not deliver economic growth, could not deliver productivity growth, and could not deliver higher wages, so the best we could do for people was to give them a 4-week holiday. That was said to be the best we could do. Now we have a Minister of Education who says that school boards of trustees are not capable of engaging in an employee-employer relationship, and are not capable of being with the people that they know best and delivering the results, in terms of the best education for our own children. So the Minister says the Government will empower the State Service Commission to do the dirty work—do the hard work—for the Government. That is what will happen under this legislation. I say to the Minister of Education that this is a disappointing day for the people of New Zealand. If he had a more positive view, and if he was prepared to engage with the boards of trustees and give them more power, as opposed to taking power away from them, he might have found that they reacted in a very, very different way.

We know that this is just the start of things to come from the Labour Government. When Labour came into this House in 1999 as the Government, it told us that it would raise taxes in only one area: the top personal taxation rate. The Government cruelly raised that rate from 33c in the dollar to 39c in the dollar as a pure envy tax, because it did not need the fiscal revenue from that to deliver its programme. What the Labour Government did then is no different from what it is to deliver under this bill. This bill is just the start of what is to come. Mark my words, since the Labour Government has been in power we have had 19 increases in levies or income tax. New Zealanders are getting taxed to death under this Labour Government. We will see just the start of that in the education sector.

Today we see the boards of trustees being robbed of their most crucial relationship with their employees. We will see that situation continuing into the future. This Minister will use the powers he has for whatever he can legislate to go forward. When the people of New Zealand take the time to look at this bill they will reflect on the words of Mr Simon Power, the outstanding member for Rangitikei, who said that Trevor Mallard was in divorce proceedings with the PPTA. Simon Power was quite right when he said that. It is an irreconcilable divorce, and one that will end up, as so many divorces sadly do, in tears. This is a sad day for education in this country. National will oppose this bill, and rightly so.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Unlike the personal comments that have dotted some of the Opposition’s comments on this bill, I rise to support my colleague, whom I regard as an excellent Minister of Education. He is a Minister who has made a really positive difference to literacy and numeracy in the early years, as all the testing will show members, and therefore I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

Ayes 82

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a first time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): I move, That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Education and Science Committee, and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 19 March 2004.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 82

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the end of this debate, I will move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee.

The Government has sponsored this bill to maintain the growth of the export education industry, infuse stability, and guarantee a principled approach to the education of international students. The bill ensures that immediate financial relief can be provided directly from the levy fund to assist students affected by provider collapse.

As recent cases have illustrated, swift action is essential to support students who face loss, insecurity, and indecision. This bill sends a clear message that international students who come to New Zealand can have confidence that in the unfortunate event of a provider failure they will be looked after. The Government—and, I am sure, all sector providers in this most important industry—hopes that in future there will not be any need to use this proposed legislation on the money that comes from it. The message that sends about stability, and the support that we have around the House, is very important to our international relationships. I ask members opposite to think of that and be slightly careful as they debate the issue.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): That is a bit rich coming from this Minister, that it is now our responsibility to maintain the credibility of international education, when he has been the Minister in charge of it for 4 years! This bill is a signal of his failure.

Going back to the early 1990s, measures have been taken by Governments to maintain the credibility of the export education sector. A big question that the House has to answer tonight when considering this bill is why it is that Government agencies have failed to do the job they are charged to do by statutes passed by this House? This bill is about levying providers retrospectively to pay for the failure of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. That is what it is about. Let us just clarify the retrospectivity of it. Clause 4(3) states: “If, before subsections (1A) to (1C) came into force, the agency responsible for the administration of the levy has made any payment that could have been made, or for which it could have been reimbursed, from the funds of the levy had it been in force at the time the payment was made, the funds of the levy may, with the approval of the Minister, be used to reimburse the agency for that payment.” So it is retrospective.

The Government has already spent the money it will levy with this bill—a bill that will not be passed for some time. The money has already been spent, yet the Minister has the gall to get up and say: “I hope no institution collapses so we’ll never have to use the money.” But he will collect it, anyway. So it could be that the money is spent before the law passes, and after the law passes the Government does not need to spend any more money. It could be a total waste of time.

Let us just get into the detail. This bill has been a reaction to some sensitivities from foreign governments about export education, not just in this country, as the Minister pointed out, but in a number of countries. We are not the only country that has been asked for a list of approved providers. In fact, Australia, Canada, and the UK have been asked, not just New Zealand. It is not a feature of our market alone, or of the people the Minister hates—that is, the private providers, whom he cannot stand the sight or stench of.

We are not being picked on. This is a reaction to the Modern Age Institute collapse and the Carich collapse. I thought to myself, being new to the job, that since those institutions have collapsed and left the students high and dry, it must be that they were never checked up on—and that would be terrible. I had a look, and what did I find? I found that these institutions have been checked up on, very frequently. Between October 2000 and 2003 the New Zealand Qualifications Authority conducted three quality audits of the Modern Age Institute of Learning. When we look at those institutions, we see that one of the central issues is whether the money students have paid has been put in the trust fund. The authority asked the Modern Age Institute whether it had put the money in the trust fund, and it said “Yes”. The authority said: “Thank you very much. We believe you. We’re off.” Now the whole private training sector will pay $400,000 for that mistake.

Carich collapsed, and who was there right alongside Carich day by day, month by month? It was the Ministry of Education and the new and much-beloved Tertiary Education Commission. They stood right by Carich’s side as it fell to the dirt and took its creditors and students with them. What were the bureaucrats doing? The Minister’s own officials watched those institutions collapse, because of their incompetence, then the officials went to the Minister’s office, and, on the spur of the moment, said: “Pass a piece legislation to cover our costs.” The cost to the Government is $700,000. I would like the Minister to tell us what proportion of that money went to students? Can he confirm that $400,000 went to students and the rest went on officials’ flights and accommodation?

That is the inherent problem with this legislation. The people who pay the bill have no control over what happens. In this case, the Minister’s officials mucked up. They let two institutions collapse as they watched; but they got to send the bill to the other private training providers who have no control over who comes into the industry, no control over how officials spend the money, and no control whatsoever over the vindictiveness of a Minister who wants to rub out any private provider of anything, including education to foreign students. That is why the levy is wrong. The Government agencies should be able to monitor the sector, as they have been required to in the past. Why have they not?

Why is it that New Zealand Qualifications Authority accreditation does not mean anything to the Chinese Government? When the Chinese Government asks for a list, why can the Government not just give it a list of New Zealand Qualifications Authority accredited providers? The reason is that the Minister has no faith in the authority to do its job properly. The law does not state that the authority monitors only public institutions; it states that it monitors all tertiary educational institutions, regardless of whether they are public or private. But when the Chinese Government comes knocking, the Minister says: “You can have the list of public institutions, but we don’t believe that the NZQA does a good enough job. So where it says ‘accredited by NZQA’, don’t believe that.” He was right. I agree with him. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is hopeless. It is disgraceful and negligent, and the students have paid.

The Minister has given the authority permission to continue being reckless and negligent. It can do what it likes; the bill gets sent to the private training providers, not the Minister. The students will get their money, and that is a good thing—they should. However, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority faces no sanctions whatsoever for its failure, none at all. The Minister divides the world into two. If public providers go down the toilet he just fronts up with the cash. In the last 4 years my guess is that the Minister has put over $100 million into saving polytechnics that were going down the tubes. He has put in over $100 million in capital injections. The Northland Polytech has been under restructuring for 2 years. Why is he not levying all the other polytechs for the huge cost being run up by the polytechs—for 2 years at $2,500 a day, and the restructure is no closer now than it was 12 months ago? Why does he not levy the polytechs for that failure? Of course he will not, because they are nice State institutions that deserve to get all the money they need whenever they need it. A private institution will get the levy when the public institution stuffs up. Instead of passing this legislation, the Minister should get the New Zealand Qualifications Authority into his office, sack the chief executive, sack the operational people—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the member saying that I should sack the chief executive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s outrageous!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister should stop quacking. He usually keeps that behaviour for public meetings.

The Minister should sort out the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, because it sold those students down the line. It failed to do its job. The authority is a statutory body charged with monitoring those institutions, and it did not do that. That is why we will oppose this legislation. If we thought there was a comprehensive package of measures where we could rely on the State institutions to enforce the code of pastoral care and rely on the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to do the auditing and monitoring it is meant to do, then we would have an open mind. However, the Minister refuses to put pressure on the Government institutions and he is making the private ones pay the bill.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): At least that speech was given with far more passion than the current leader of the National Party could ever do. I rise to support this bill. It is very, very important. It is very important to maintain this critical industry so that students and their home Governments are assured that they will receive quality education in exchange for their very important investment. This bill is good. It is another example of this Government yet again showing excellent leadership.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): In John Key’s speech on an earlier bill he mentioned that this Government has brought in 19 extra levies and taxes since it became the Government in 1999. After this bill is passed all the way through, there will be 20. Basically, this is a new tax. It is a tax on the inefficiency and incapability of Government agencies. The private training establishments that are performing well, doing well, and doing everything properly will pay that tax.

This is the third shot that the Minister of Education has had at trying to get in place an export education levy, and he has not got it right once. The first time was in the Education Standards Act, if members recall. There was going to be a levy on all institutions to ensure monitoring of the code of practice for international students. We supported that; we thought that it was good, that it was well done. Then there was the other rush of blood to the head: the day before we went into deliberation on the Tertiary Education Reform Bill—the legislation that was the bus passing by; it was Steve Maharey’s little baby—the Minister, Trevor Mallard, threw an export education levy into it. What happened with that? It went to a select committee for analysis, and every institution that came along criticised it. Was Simon Power there?

Simon Power: I was there.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: He was there. I have never seen legislation that everybody who came along said was inadequate, would not work, and was shonky, and they had not been consulted on it. Yet it was pushed through, on the basis that the Government would not increase the levy, would not put it up—that it was a levy to do just this thing and that thing, and the Government would not put it up. Even at that particular time, we were being told what that levy would be for.

What has occurred is that one or two of these private training establishments have not been monitored adequately by the State agencies. Bill English got it right: the problem is the State agencies and the lack of quality assurance systems—they have fallen over. The systems that are being demanded are good systems if they are followed through—for example, not just having money put in a bank to make sure there is cover, but also checking the bank account to see whether the money is actually there. Not doing that is a pretty fundamental monitoring error. As a result of that fundamental monitoring error the Ministry of Education, one way or the other, had to come up with $700,000. Part of it is administration costs and part of it is direct costs. The Minister then said we will recover it, and the way we will recover it is by banging up the export education levy.

Pansy Wong: Who pays?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: The people who are going to pay are the people who are running private training establishments that are working well, doing things properly, setting high standards, and following the rules. Now they are going to be penalised by this Minister, because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has not done its job properly. When we look at Carich—although the circumstances are not quite the same—we see it went down as a result of some of this Government’s policies. Now the private training establishments that have been able to work within those pretty draconian policies, to operate well, are going to be penalised even further.

The percentage component of the levy on private training establishments—not polytechs or universities, and schools have been exempted already—is going to be increased from 0.45 percent to 0.7 percent. So that the people who are listening can understand the significance of this measure, I point out that the increase will apply despite the promulgation of the Education (Export Education Levy) Regulations 2003. So we are going to throw out a regulation that has been promulgated, and we will do so purely and simply to put through a piece of legislation as a stopgap measure because one of the Government agencies has not done its job properly.

Bill English is saying that collecting all this money may not be necessary. But the money has already been spent and the Minister is trying to extract it back. It is one of the problems of having a Minister of Education who is also Associate Minister of Revenue—a Minister who wears both those hats. In this particular case, it has led to unjust legislation. If, for example—and Mr English once again made this point—a polytech got itself into trouble over the very same sort of thing, would the Minister require all the other polytechs to bail it out? If Victoria University or Otago University got itself into some difficulties as a result of the export education market, would the Minister expect all the other universities to cough up extra to bail it out? The fact is that, no, the Minister would not. Unfortunately, the part of the sector that the Minister is penalising is the part that is actually achieving. These institutions are doing the very things that he wants them to do—in other words, to operate soundly and to provide good-quality export education. Yet now they are going to be penalised.

There is another downside to this. Who is going to end up paying this bill?

Simon Power: The students.

Pansy Wong: The students.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It will be the students. I have to say to Mr Mallard that there is a real drop-off in the number of students who are coming here—in fact, by two-thirds. Members should consider this: the New Zealand dollar is making export education even more expensive for overseas students. Now it is going to get worse. So what will happen? The Minister takes whole departments over to China to try to promulgate export education here. Can anyone explain to me why he took the chief executive officer of the Education Review Office over to China to say how good our English-language teaching is? That did not make any sense to me. Nevertheless, the Minister went over there to try to do a job, to try to fix up the mess he has created, and now he is creating even more of a mess back here in New Zealand.

So New Zealand First—I think the Minister probably has got this point—is not going to support this legislation, because it is unjust, unfair, and shonky. The Minister should put his energies into making sure the New Zealand Qualification Authority gets its systems right, rather than putting through legislation that is going to penalise quality education providers.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to oppose the first reading of the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. We opposed the export levy when it was introduced in a rush as part of the Tertiary Education Reform Bill last year, for several reasons. We believed back then that it would clearly impact on profitability and lead to subsequent fee increases, thereby reducing competitiveness, which we now see with other countries providing export education.

There were also question marks at the time as to whether the levy would achieve what it was supposed to do. The generic marketing approach, funded by the levy, was not sufficiently targeted to students for particular courses, and, at that time at least, there was no evidence of market failure in the sector in terms of marketing, quality assurance, or even pastoral care. The select committee consideration of the levy found that a significant portion of the industry was not supportive of the levy, at all. Although the Tertiary Education Reform Bill included a provision that required the Government to show there was sufficient support among industries for a levy to fund industry training organisations, as I recall, there was no similar requirement for an export education levy.

So we come to this bill tonight, which takes the levy and increases the amount, but for one class of providers only—that is, the private training establishments. This has arisen, as we know, from the collapse of the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich Training Centre—both private providers—which saw the Government dipping into what I call the fiduciary fund to assist international students affected by those closures. As a consequence, the bill also enables the Government now to recover those costs.

The levy was intended to enhance the development, promotion, and quality assurance of the entire industry, but the uneven nature of this change to the levy undermines any attempt to create a unified sector. We all know that a State provider, such as a school or a polytechnic, would not be allowed by the Government to collapse, as we have already heard, but I have severe doubts that, in that case, the Government would seek to recover its costs from the levy fund. The industry, not the taxpayer, should be asked to bail out State providers that falter, as well. In any case, public sector institutions are able to cross-subsidise losses from Government-funded domestic student operations in a way that the private sector cannot. Of course, the point could also be made that State providers—particularly schools—get into export education to avoid going under because of insufficient Government funding; that is a debate, I guess, for another day.

This issue goes even further than the providers. Export education is, we have been told, the fourth-biggest export earner for the country, with estimated revenue of $1.8 billion. Yet we know that only one-third of the revenue from foreign fee-paying students comes from tuition fees, some of which then is passed on to the employees of the providers. The other two-thirds is pumped into the economy as a result of students spending on accommodation, food, telecommunications, recreation, and travel. The portion that goes back to the State, in the form of GST, is considerable, going up to about $250 million—just for GST.

It is significant that the Tertiary Education Reform Bill did not include provision to differentiate the rate of the levy according to the type of provider, as the whole aim of the levy was to create a unified industry. But this bill means that law-abiding providers that are compliant with the conditions of their registration will be penalised for the mistakes of others. Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this is that the private sector in this industry is being held accountable for the failing of a competitor or competitors. That is not exactly standard business practice in an open economy. It is the Government that controls entry to the industry, as only registered private training establishments can enrol overseas students, yet the industry is expected to pick up the tab for the Government’s errors of judgment.

I note that the Government’s original discussion document from last year on the imposition of the levy recognised the competitive nature of the industry, but also included a number of areas where industry cooperation adds value. What is proposed in this bill could conceivably come under this rubric if it can be couched in a generality, such as the need to preserve the industry’s reputation. But the emphasis throughout this discussion document is on national industry, cooperation across the whole sector, and providing a unified voice. Nowhere does it talk about differentiating between the private and public sectors. If anything, the message is that the different parts of the industry must pull together, yet this bill threatens to drive them even further apart.

Interestingly, the submission of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee on the original discussion document proposed that if there was to be an export education levy, it should come from the students’ student visa or permit, as this would be much more equitable, uniform, and, in fact, upfront. If this bill is going to discriminate, then it should at least waive the increase in levy for those providers that took on at no charge students who, because of those collapses, had lost their prepaid fees.

Yesterday I received a timely reminder that the overall impact of those collapses on the industry seems to have been rather minor, if not negligible. Despite a spate of bad publicity, the number of foreign fee-paying students in New Zealand schools continues to rise. There are now, I am told, nearly 17,500 fee-paying students, which is 14 percent up on last year. Government figures show that the number of Asian students resident in this country also increased substantially, and I am sure that the Minister of Education’s recent charm offensive in countries like China had a lot to do with this.

But I still suggest that this bill is perhaps not as necessary as first thought. Net of GST, the fiduciary export levy fund has to have received at least $3 million this year, even without adding the 0.45 percent levy. This fund has to be way ahead of its projections, as the number of students was not expected to increase by 14 percent. How large could this fund be when the levy is raised to 0.7 percent for the largest slice of the market providers—that is, the private training establishments? So what is the need for this punitive legislation? What has happened to the export education levy fund? I notice today that even the Vice-Chancellors Committee has no idea how much has been collected for this year, 2003.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We’ll table the report in the House on Tuesday.

BERNIE OGILVY: OK. Indeed, it does not know how much has been spent. Education New Zealand, as I think the funds manager is called, has really gone quiet at the moment as the bill is before us.

United Future is voting against this legislation, and if it progresses to the Education and Science Committee, I would like to think that those in the industry will have a real chance to have their voices heard on this bill, including the imposition of the levy in the first place. United Future wants to see the select committee ask some hard financial questions about where the existing levy money has gone. Surely, there is at least $700,000 left over from the worldwide trips that were made this year.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): One of the disappointing things about the last 4 to 5 weeks has been the fact that I have not been able to sit on the Education and Science Committee and have an opportunity to listen to the organisations, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and my personal favourite, the Tertiary Education Commission, when they come before that committee to discuss issues of competency, but, more particularly, to provide a check on the activity or inactivity of those organisations with regard to issues like this.

Bill English and Brian Donnelly both hit the nail square on the head when they said to the Minister that what should be done in this situation is to get the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Commission, and—while he is at it—the New Zealand Teachers Council into his office and say to those three organisations that they are all useless. Part of the problem that we are facing with this bill is the fact that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission—as long suspected by this member—have been so caught up in the big-picture, philosophical, architectural design in their own minds of how they want to see the education system at a tertiary level develop that they have missed doing their core business. Their core business is to ensure that the quality of the education coming out of those institutions meets a certain marker and, more particularly, that the money invested on behalf of the taxpayer in those organisations is protected, monitored, and audited to the point that taxpayers know that their money is safe.

I know—because the Minister has admitted as much in question time in the House under questioning with regard to the Teachers Council—that it has problems.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Fewer problems than it had a couple of months ago.

SIMON POWER: Let us hope so. The fact is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been hopeless. Every time the New Zealand Qualifications Authority appeared before the select committee, when I was on it for a short time, matters just went from bad to worse. In fact, Brian Donnelly, who chairs that committee, will recall that we had to haul the New Zealand Qualifications Authority back before the committee after we had looked at transcripts of descriptions of activity that they had given the committee, because it turned out that they were completely wrong. We had to recall the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to the committee, put it under the gun again, and ask the questions a second time.

I say to the Minister of Education that the thing that concerns me most about all of this is that I know that Minister knows that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not doing its job properly. So why not line the New Zealand Qualifications Authority up in his office and take to it? Mr Ogilvy says that it is the institutions that will be penalised, but that is just not right. It is the students who will be penalised when the levy comes in, because all that will happen is that the cost will be passed to the users of the institution. I know that members want students to have a quality education, but the reality is that this bill is misguided in that regard.

I would bet money that the Tertiary Education Commission is a can of worms waiting to be opened. I am envious of my colleague the Hon Bill English getting to sit on the Education and Science Committee when the Tertiary Education Commission comes before it. I am tempted to do a deal with Dr Wayne Mapp to see whether I can get on there for the day. I tell members that that organisation might have the lofty ideals clear in its mind that Steve Maharey has imparted to it, but it does not have the operational aspects of the tertiary education system locked down, at all. The Tertiary Education Commission is just another New Zealand Qualifications Authority waiting to happen when it comes to dealing with those institutions—the way they are funded, the charters and profiles, and the way in which the operational matters occur.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The place leaks like a sieve, and that is a sure sign that all is not well there. I say to Trevor Mallard that if he really wants to look after international students and if it is their welfare that he is most concerned about, then he should direct the energy at the institutions that should be monitoring and auditing those providers, rather than just picking off the private providers and saying that they will carry the burden and the cost.

We have seen it happen when regional polytechnics have not met the grade. What happened in those cases? Well, the big cheques were written, and I have to say—[Interruption] I tell Ms Coddington that that is right. I have to say that when decisions in legislation are based purely on the difference between whether an institution is owned publicly or privately—regardless of the quality of the education being provided, regardless of the type of management and governance structures in place, regardless of the accountability those institutions should have to the departments that should be monitoring them—I would ask whether we should not apply the same standard to all institutions, including those institutions and Government departments that should be monitoring the use and expenditure of taxpayers’ money.

We on this side of the House know that it is actually the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—and, I am willing to bet, the Tertiary Education Commission—that should be under the gun here. Those are the institutions that have failed international students, as much as the institutions themselves that allegedly provided the education. As I said earlier, I know that the Minister of Education knows that. It seems to me that the quickest, most effective, least political way of dealing with this problem is to deal with those institutions that should be monitoring and watching these providers. I am just not convinced that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is anything more than a bumbling group of bureaucrats who are unable to see anything past scraping through the next financial review before the Education and Science Committee. Those New Zealand—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sure that’s not the major focus.

SIMON POWER: I tell the Minister that it should be, because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is the organisation that should be here, and in the gun. I say that that is where the focus of this bill should be, and that it seems to me that to punish those private institutions that are doing well will actually end up punishing the students that this Government most wishes to help. When we look at the figures and statistics, of course, it is Māori who most often take up their tertiary education through private providers, and it seems to me that it is Māori who will suffer as a result of increased costs, taxes, and levies being put on these institutions.

Those costs will be passed to those students, and in that instance, it is they who will be put off entering tertiary education providers. It is they who deserve the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be doing its job in a way they know that hard-earned money saved, or borrowed through the student loan scheme, will provide those students with an asset to improve their lot, and the lot of their families into the future. It is those organisations—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission—that should be in the gun here, not the institutions or the students those institutions wish to serve.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): The ACT party will be opposing this amendment bill. The Minister of Education talks about export education as if we were talking about cattle being fattened for beef. He seems to forget that we are actually talking about human beings in this legislation, and the fact that people come to New Zealand because of the choice that is available. This new tax—because that is what it is; it is an excuse for this Government to impose another tax on people—is another tax on private providers. What did the Hon Brian Donnelly say? There have been 19 new taxes so far, and this is yet another. [Interruption] We know we are winning the argument when members opposite resort to personal attacks because they cannot even defend their own policies any more. Do members know why they cannot defend their own policies? It is because their policies are totally indefensible.

This legislation reduces choice, and it reduces flexibility for students. As Simon Power said—and he was quite right—the majority of students who choose private providers are Māori and Pacific Island students, because they like the flexibility that private providers offer them. They are often young women who have left school, had babies, and want to return to the workforce, and the part-time courses in terms of night classes and 6-week classes—instead of the 3-year classes that the public institutions force them to take—are a lot more attractive.

Simon Power was also absolutely right when he talked about bureaucracy building. This is another way for this Government to get more taxes to build bureaucracies. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is expanding. He talked about the Teachers Council. The Teachers Council is known in the education sector as just a post office. It takes in the applications for teachers, it takes them out of an envelope, it puts them in another envelope, it sends them off to the police, they come back, and the council collects $10 on the way.

There have been several changes in the head of the Teachers Council since it was set up. It is still not even coping with the work it is required to do, and the latest letter that went out to the education sector, naming the new head of the Teachers Council said, in addition, that it would continue to advertise the position on an ongoing basis. So at least the council has accepted that it cannot hold anyone there for long. The Minister should get his bureaucrats in and get them to be accountable.

We also see in this explanatory note of the bill that this export education is a sustainable, green export. That is just cant, total cant, and this Government knows that. It is totally pathetic. Why should the public sector not be held accountable when it fails? A hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money has been poured into polytechs to bail them out when they fail, but instead of punishing the private providers that make mistakes, this Government decides to punish everybody. That is the culture of this Government that we see all the time. If a child gets beaten to death, let us ban smacking. If one or two education institutions fail, let us tax all of them.

The Association of Private Providers of English Language put out a very good question and answer thing today, in which it addressed the issues. The association asked a very important question: “Did the Minister consult?”. This Minister is very proud of the fact that he consults. He sends me nice little friendly emails saying that he does front up, and he does consult. He has not learnt to find the caps key yet, but he is a slow learner, in his own words. But did the Minister consult? The Minister announced that private training establishments would pay for the refunds given to students of the Modern Age Institute of Learning on 8 September, without consulting the industry at all. He did not even go to the industry. He came out and announced it.

The Modern Age Institute of Learning closed because of bad management, but there was bad management in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, as well. The authority was not keeping a good watch on the institute. It found serious problems in September 2001 and again in February 2003, and most of the problems were still there in August 2003, but they were mainly due to lack of systems and poor implementation. Why did the bureaucrats not step in then?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.