Tuesday, 3 August 2004

Tuesday, 3 August 2004

Tuesday, 3 August 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, last week the leader of the ACT party raised a point of order as to the implications for ACT’s parliamentary membership of a Court of Appeal judgment on the use of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 to remove Donna Awatere Huata from Parliament. The court has held that at this stage there are no grounds for removing Mrs Huata under the legislation. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has no effect on ACT’s parliamentary membership. Parliamentary membership is determined entirely under the House’s own internal rules—its Standing Orders. Since the ACT leader’s advice to me under Standing Order 35 on 11 November 2003 that Mrs Huata had ceased to be a member of ACT, ACT’s parliamentary membership has been eight members, and that is where it remains today.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That ruling does have some bearing, of course, on what actions we might take. Am I to understand that in terms of Parliament we have eight MPs and our proportion is eight, but that, according to the courts, we actually have not lost any proportion; that we are dealing with two worlds: one world where we have eight MPs and are treated accordingly; and another world—the courts’—where we have nine?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not concerned with the courts; I am concerned with Parliament only.

Points of Order

Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to Speaker’s ruling 149/4. The then Associate Minister of Transport, Harry Duynhoven, in December 2003, and the Civil Aviation Authority director, John Jones, have vehemently and repeatedly said to Parliament that their agents were not tapping into telephones and taping calls. They denied that. I knew those answers to be false. I said they were false in December last year, in a parliamentary question to the Minister, and I said they were false in February this year, at the select committee.

Last Thursday the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Rodger Fisher, came to see me. He had prepared a report, which is dated 16 June and is from the authority’s legal services group. In it the group accepts that the authority, in the year 2002, used taxpayer-supplied scanning equipment to tap private citizens’ phones and to tape conversations.

Mr SPEAKER: So far we have not had a point of order. I want to know what the point of order is. There is some interesting material that I am listening to with considerable interest, but it is not a point of order. What is the point?

RODNEY HIDE: I am almost there. This report, dated 16 June, accepted that, as part of a covert surveillance, private phone calls were scanned, listened into, and recorded. Of course, that is an offence. New Zealanders would be horrified to know that civil servants are listening into their phone calls. But what is horrifying—and, Mr Speaker, this is where I am asking you to provide some guidance to this House—is that the Minister and his chief executive have consistently denied it, and, indeed, have provided answers to this House and to the select committee that are clearly wrong. They have known that, because they have had a report, prepared by their own chairman, since 16 June. I would have thought they would come down to this House to provide a correction.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister considers he has given wrong information, he must correct it, but it is up to the Minister, not me, to judge that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Unemployment Benefit—Sickness Benefit

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he still stand by his statement: “Not a single case has been produced to substantiate this claim. Work and Income has no policy of moving the unemployed on to sickness benefits.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I absolutely stand by my statement that Work and Income has no policy of moving the unemployed on to a sickness benefit. There is no such policy. Despite requests for information on cases whereby Work and Income is supposedly trying to inappropriately push people on to a sickness benefit, I have yet to see evidence of this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware that a number of members of Parliament have received direct information from constituents that that is precisely what is happening, and does he not consider two damning letters to the editor in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald, from doctors convinced that Work and Income does in fact employ a policy of moving people off the unemployment benefit and on to sickness benefits, to be substantial evidence of the policy that he denies to be a reality and at work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I follow the letters in the newspaper very carefully, as well. I want to say to the member that none of the doctors has said that Work and Income is pushing people on to a sickness benefit. For example, I know a doctor, who may well have written to the member, and I have the letter in front of me now that points out that doctors have no way of seeing that this is coming from a case manager. In fact, what doctors say is that patients seem wilfully or skilfully to be misinterpreting what is going on around them, and that they come along to try to get this from their doctor. I repeat that it is a doctor’s judgment as to whether someone gets a sickness benefit, not a case manager’s. The doctor makes a judgment on medical grounds.

Georgina Beyer: Who has the central role in deciding whether a person transfers from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is doctors. As medical professionals, they are the gatekeepers of this policy. We rely on the professional skills and ethics of doctors to certify sickness only when they are convinced it exists. This is the case whether a person is a worker, a beneficiary, or a patient seeking medication. Work and Income case managers have no medical training, and should never try to determine whether a person is too sick to work. None of us wants case managers to decide what assistance people can apply for off their own bat. Doctors are the only people who can test eligibility for a sickness benefit, and we rely on them to apply the highest professional standards.

Katherine Rich: Is demanding specific details of patients not a political stunt, because the Minister knows that no doctor will breach patient confidentiality; and is he suggesting that the doctors and medical groups who say they are being put under mounting pressure to pass able-bodied beneficiaries as unfit for work so that they can claim the sickness benefit are making it up?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, we are not asking for a political stunt to be followed through. We would simply like a doctor to say to us: “I have evidence of an individual case manager sending someone to me to be put on the sickness benefit.” Of course, doctors would not do that, because they are making a medical and ethical judgment, and, therefore, they would not certify someone as sick who is not sick. We have not had one single doctor—the Medical Association has been approached on this—saying that he or she has evidence of a case manager sending a client for that purpose—not one.

Sue Bradford: Does the Government intend to do more to support the work of reputable mental health non-governmental organisations like the Phobic Trust to help invalids and sickness beneficiaries move into paid work; if not, why not, given the very practical ways in which such organisations can help people who otherwise languish on the benefit?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows, earlier this year the Government launched its Sickness and Invalids Benefit Strategy, which will involve a large number of people who are currently in positions such as the member describes being assisted, and in many cases they will be helped by community organisations.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the number of people transferring from the dole to the sickness benefit for depression has increased by 73 percent since the year 2000 and the number transferring due to stress has increased by 99 percent over the same period, and how does he explain such a sharp rise in specific incapacity over such a short period of time?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am aware of a rise in those numbers due to depression and stress. It is common to all OECD countries that those kinds of conditions are now part of the sickness benefit arrangements. It is one of the reasons why earlier this year we introduced a whole range of new policies. We believe that issues such as depression can be dealt with relatively quickly, and people can return to work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen Dr Ah Chan’s comments—which I am certain have been brought to his attention—that: “The sickness benefit scam has been going on for decades. The situation came to a head in 1999 when Winz staff started asking patients for whom I would not sign certificates to go to other GPs who would. I lost many patients to doctors who would readily accept new patients and their fees.”, alongside the answer given by his colleague Rick Barker on 30 November that over 36 percent of those on sickness benefits were, immediately before they moved to the sickness benefit, on the unemployment benefit? Who is lying in unison here: the bureaucrats, his ministry, or the doctors out there who know it is going on as a fact?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On the second question, regarding Rick Barker’s answer to his question, I will get the material down here and table it, because the member is not quoting it correctly, but I do not have it in front of me. So I will get it down here to do that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table Rick Barker’s answer right now.

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

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —because that is the right thing to do. Can I go back to Dr Ah Chan’s letter and remind the member that Dr Ah Chan said in his letter to the New Zealand Herald that: “Any doctor signing a false declaration is as guilty as the patient.” I go back to the central point in this debate: case managers are not medically qualified people. The only person who makes a decision as to whether someone can get on to a sickness benefit and fill out this sickness benefit medical certificate—the entire form—is the doctor certifying the health status of that person, and Dr Ah Chan affirms exactly that.

Dr Muriel Newman: How come everyone in the country appears to know what has been going on with people switching from unemployment benefits to sickness benefits except him as Minister, and why does he think it is that he is failing to keep a grip on what is happening in his own portfolio?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Everybody in the country does not know what that member knows. I know she goes to meetings with people in phone booths all over the country, but meeting with that few group of ACT supporters does not constitute everybody in the country understanding something that is clearly and utterly not true.

Judy Turner: How will the trial of medical intervention in Manukau as part of the Sickness and Invalids Benefit Strategy produce results when 41 percent of invalid beneficiaries and 30 percent of sickness beneficiaries in that area suffer from psychological disorders yet the provider that has been contracted to treat them, ProCare Health, is an organisation of general practitioners, not specialists in mental health?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would be very happy to walk the member right through all of the people who have been contracted for the Manukau pilot, which does include people who deal with psychological conditions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister denying the substance of Rick Barker’s answer on 13 November last year that over 36 percent of those on the sickness benefit were immediately before that time on the unemployment benefit; and will he give two undertakings: one, that any citizen who writes to him outlining that that is what they were told by Work and Income will get protection; and, two, will he resign when they do so?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have said all the way through this debate that if anybody wants to bring a specific case of a Work and Income case manager who has forced a person to go along to the doctor and get the doctor to falsify the fact that that person is not fit for work, I want to hear about that case. We will deal with it and that person will be protected from any comeback.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No allegation has been made that any Work and Income officer has forced someone to go, but that those officers have advised people to go, otherwise they will receive no benefit at all. This idea of putting up a straw man and seeking to knock him down, seeking to justify doctors having some evidentiary responsibility here is a load of nonsense. We who go to our clinics know full well what is going on, and we want some honest answers.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s answers will be honest, or, of course, he faces very serious consequences.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s right.

Mr SPEAKER: That is right, and the member knows that. That was a political point, not a point or order.

Schools—Character Education Programme

2. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his comment in 2000 that he has “no doubt schools play a very important role in setting the values of young people, and it is important that they do that in an informed way, not by default.”; if so, what concrete steps has he taken to ensure that all schools have implemented some form of character education programme?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education (Adult and Community Education)), on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, I do stand by the comment of my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, because I am pursuing the development of values education in the New Zealand Curriculum Project and expanding on the excellent work contained in the Suspension Reduction Initiative.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister consider the fact that there has been a 31 percent increase in stand-downs and/or suspensions since the year 2000 to be a pressing reason for the introduction of the type of character education programmes she spoke of; if she does consider that to be a pressing reason, when can we expect to see some progress?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: On the question of stand-downs and suspensions, I think it is worthwhile to look at figures rather than percentages. I accept that there has been a percentage increase in suspensions—not necessarily exclusions or even stand-downs—in primary schools, but there has been a reduction in secondary schools. When we look at those numbers, we see that there have been eight suspensions for all New Zealand’s primary school population in 2003 for the consumption of alcohol.

Lynne Pillay: What self-management and social skills are required to be taught under the National Administration Guidelines?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The skills included under the social and cooperative skills in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework are as follows: integrity, perseverance, courage, self-esteem, good relationships with others, respect for others, reliability, trustworthiness, fairness, diligence, and generosity—all of which we practise every day in this House, and all of which will help a child to develop a good character.

Hon Bill English: In the context of educating our young people in good behaviour, what comment does she have on the fact that the Ministry of Youth Affairs’ guidelines for drug education programmes omit to state that schools should tell children that drugs are illegal, and that drugs are bad for them?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I cannot comment on the Ministry of Youth Affairs, or its guidelines. I know, as a former principal, that I was quite clear that drugs were illegal and that they broke the law of the school.

Jim Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the national curriculum framework requires schools to develop appropriate attitudes and values for their students; that that is reviewable by the Education Review Office; and that many schools, such as the Onerahi School in Whangarei, develop their own values programme for the whole benefit of their students?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I would really like to support what has been said by my colleague across the floor of the House, in that values education is something that was accepted last year in a 2-day workshop with educators and researchers from around the country as something that is taught holistically in the school, and they are working very hard and following up work in the New Zealand school curriculum project on enhancing how it can be better taught and supported in our schools.

Tariana Turia: As there are diverse cultural populations represented in our educational institutions, how do schools ensure that the cultural values of those young people are nurtured and protected, and that they are not overrepresented in suspensions, stand-downs, and expulsions?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: There are two comments I would like to make. First of all I think that amongst all of the peoples of this country, kindness and love for one another is shared regardless of race or culture—there are some basic values shared by all of us. Number two, under the Suspension Reduction Initiative, we have worked very hard and been successful in reducing the number of Māori students who have been suspended.

Hon Peter Dunne: Since the national curriculum framework has provided for character or values education since 1993, why has it taken the Minister so long to implement a programme along the lines that she has spoken of this afternoon?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As a former principal, when I was faced in 1993 with—[Interruption] If members will let me finish the question I will explain how ministerials, Ministers—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is entitled to give her answer in the way that she wishes. She is not out of order. I do not think she is even trying to be controversial in this area.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As a former principal following ministerial guidelines set down in 1993 under the framework and under the National Administration Guidelines, for which we were responsible, we did carry out, and we do carry out today, values education. What is different is that since 2002, under the curriculum stocktake, we have reviewed how values education is carried out in schools. I mentioned the hui, and I mentioned the research programmes and the teacher development programmes that have been funded and carried on since then.

Hon Peter Dunne: Would it not be better to stop attempting to reinvent the wheel through the sorts of initiatives the Minister has announced, and simply support existing character education programmes such as Kiwi Can and others that are operating in schools now, and that are being evaluated favourably and reacted to positively by the communities they serve?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: We do support Kiwi Can.

Jim Peters: I seek leave to table the Onerahi School values programme currently in use in Whangarei.

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

Māori Language Commissioner—Foreshore and Seabed Bill

3. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding Māori Language Commission Chief Executive Haami Piripi’s submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that “It just isn’t on,”; if so, what discussions has she or her Ministers had with the board of the Māori Language Commission about the actions which should be taken as a consequence?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, I understand that the Minister of Māori Affairs has expressed his concerns about the matter to the chair of the Māori Language Commission. The Minister expects the commission board to discuss the matter and to advise him of the outcome of those discussions.

Dr Don Brash: How does she reconcile her position in regard to Mr Kit Richards, whom she demanded be sacked over a personal email sent from his home computer, which she described at the time as “guerrilla warfare”, with her position in regard to Mr Haami Piripi, who made a public submission to a select committee of Parliament, threatening civil war, or is this another example of different rules for different categories of New Zealanders?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am surprised that anyone has accused me of being soft on Mr Piripi. Mr Richards attacked Government policy covering his own State organisation. Further, he made threatening comments about me, the Minister in charge of Timberlands, and Marian Hobbs. There is all the difference in the world between a State employee who directly undermines the policy of the Government for the organisation for which he works, and Mr Piripi, who made comments about another part of Government policy. However, I want to tell the member that I would take exactly the same view as I have of Mr Piripi’s action if it were, say, the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority pronouncing on education policy, or the chief executive of Transit pronouncing on transport policy. It is not appropriate, and that is why new legislation will see that the State Services Commissioner has a role in setting down guidelines in that area.

Rodney Hide: Would it increase the Prime Minister’s concern, and strengthen her hand, to learn that Mr Piripi’s submission was prepared in December-January, long before he was denied the opportunity to take part in the hīkoi, and that he did join the hīkoi in Kaitāia, defying a Government ban, and, indeed, did sign a petition in support of Māori claims that was published in May 2004 in the Tū Mai magazine, and how come he is still employed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member has set out a pattern of activity that is not acceptable for a chief executive of a Crown entity. He might well have added the comment that was made about the Leader of the Opposition. I do not consider that comment by Mr Piripi acceptable, either. That is why the Minister has raised the matter with the commission. That is why we have legislation in front of Parliament to set down the possibility for the State Services Commissioner to have proper codes of ethics and standards in that area. This sort of activity is not acceptable. I make one more point. The chief executive of a Crown entity must be able to work with people across the political spectrum. That is why it is not appropriate for him or her to be making political comments.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for that full reply. However, she did not address one part of it, which was: how come he is still employed?

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister addressed the question. She can address the question in any way she wishes, provided she does, and she did.

Hon Peter Dunne: Do I take it from the Prime Minister’s earlier answer that there are no specific guidelines at present, which is why legislation is being prepared; if that is the case, what advice do Ministers convey to senior public servants about their role in such circumstances, how is that advice conveyed, and is there any consistency?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding is that there have not been clear guidelines in that area in the past and that the State Services Commissioner has not had a role. That is why there is now legislation before this House, which I hope will be supported, that will enable the commissioner to give guidance to the wider State sector on ethics, values, and standards. In the interim, and because of this incident, the Minister of Māori Affairs has written to the chief Māori Language Commissioner and asked him to report back to him on what set of guidelines on ethical standards the commission has laid down for its employees.

Dr Don Brash: Did she have any serious expectation that the Māori Language Commission might take some action in relation to Mr Piripi, when the chairman of the commission, Mr Patu Hohepa, has himself been shown on television participating in the seabed and foreshore hīkoi, and does she still have confidence in Mr Hohepa as chairman of the commission, in light of the fact that he himself participated in the hīkoi against the express instructions of the State Services Commissioner?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Any instructions from the State Services Commissioner could not apply to members of a board or a commission, but whether the Government has confidence in the commission obviously depends on how it handles matters. We will be watching this matter with great interest. I might also refer to the advice of Wira Gardiner, who, of course, has experience as a chief executive and as a chair of a Crown entity. He has made it quite clear that a person in Mr Piripi’s position should not be making such public statements, because they can bring the commission into disrepute, as they have.

Stephen Franks: Why does the Prime Minister think that it is relevant he has expressed regret or apologised, as reported in today’s New Zealand Herald, and if regret or apology is sufficient, what attitude would she take if a senior defence official turned up to a select committee or on television expressing his or her real views about what this Government’s attitude is doing to New Zealand’s defence against security risks?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Having read the transcript of a substantial interview that Mr Piripi did yesterday I thought that he did strike a note of regret, and there was some insight that he felt he might have gone too far, which is certainly my view and, I think, the view of many others on all sides of the House. I really cannot see the relevance of reference to officials appearing before a select committee. Officials have a duty to serve the Government of the day, and that is why we have codes of public service behaviour and why it is appropriate to now extend those guidelines in ethics and standards to the Crown entities, which, after all, are set up to give effect to Government policy regardless of who the Government is.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by Mr Piripi in his submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that: “New Zealand history is riddled with factual examples of lies, theft, murder, and racism, all characterised by settlers . . .”; if not, has she taken any steps to back up yesterday’s tough talk in front of the news media with real concrete action?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I could not accept that the paragraph that the Leader of the Opposition has just read is any fair account of New Zealand history. I might say that Mr Piripi wrote to the Dominion in the mid-1990s when he was a public servant serving another Government, expressing pretty strong views about our history. I am not aware whether that Government ever raised the matter at the time, but I repeat that these sorts of comments are not appropriate for someone in his position who must deal without fear or favour with people across the political spectrum. He has an important job to do—that is, promoting te reo Māori—and I believe that comments such as he has made actually imperil the commission in its work.

Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister recall on 27 January describing as “guerrilla warfare” a private email never intended for publication, from the general manager not of a Government department and not of a Government commission, but the independent State-owned enterprise Timberlands; and also her saying: “We are asking Timberlands chair, Young, to explain why this employee should continue in his employment.”, and that was despite the fact that Mr Kit Richards had said that if he had caused embarrassment to the Government it was inadvertent and he felt bound to apologise; why did she continue to make press statements until he was forced out of his employment; and will she give an undertaking that she will continue to make press statements until the chief executive of the Māori Language Commission is forced out of his employment; or are there two laws in New Zealand?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that Mr Richards made a direct attack on Government policy over the organisation for which he was directly employed. He further urged others in that organisation, and elsewhere, to campaign against the Government on its policy over the organisation for which he was employed. Frankly, he was in quite a different position from the Māori Language Commission chief executive, who did not make a submission about anything to do with his own organisation—he made a statement about another area of Government policy. As it stands, that was wrong.

Hon Richard Prebble: I seek the leave of the House to table an extract from the Dominion Post of 28 January: “Timberlands manager job on the line over email”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that she does little for Māori if she accepts lesser standards, no matter where they might occupy themselves in the professions, than she would accept from someone else, thereby advocating two standards, one for Māori and one for Europeans; and does she not understand how invertedly racist that is?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The course being followed is for the Minister to speak to the commission, ask it to look at the matter, and take whatever action it sees fit, and come back to him. I assure the member that if the action is seen to fall short, that will only speed the passage of Crown entity legislation through this House so that there can be very clear expectations laid down of what appropriate conduct by people at high levels of Crown entities actually is.

Dr Don Brash: What is the difference—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point in interjecting when the person next to the member is asking the question. The fact that the microphone is on is not a reason.

Dr Don Brash: What is the difference between the situation with Mr Kit Richards, whom she demanded be sacked following his sending of a personal email from a home computer, which she described at the time as guerrilla warfare, and the situation with Mr Piripi, who made a submission to a select committee in which he stated of a piece of her own Government’s legislation: “It destroys any confidence we might have in Parliament, and in Government, to govern fairly.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For the third time—one person directly attacked Government policy for his organisation. Mr Piripi did not.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to table Mr Piripi’s name on the petition.

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

Solid Energy—Ministerial Confidence

4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he satisfied with the environmental performance of Solid Energy?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I think it is fair to say that this company has made some mistakes. However, it now has in place a prevention, monitoring, and remediation work programme designed to address identified issues. That said, there is clearly ongoing work required.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he believe that the high levels of acid, heavy metals, and solids in the Ngākawau River, which drains the Stockton mine, meet the objective of Solid Energy’s current statement of intent to have a positive net effect on the New Zealand environment; if not, why has he given the company no direction at any time to clean up its act?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member asks and answers the question. The statement of corporate intent is the clearly stated intent of the company. It is against that statement that I will hold it to account.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister, by way of example, give an indication of remediation work being undertaken by the company?

Hon MARK BURTON: A number of initiatives are being worked on to manage fires, revegetate slopes, and rehabilitate sites in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Grey District Council and the West Coast Regional Council. I note that Solid Energy’s chief executive has said that it is no longer acceptable for anyone in coalmining to have long-term detrimental effects on the environment. I strongly agree with his assertion.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware that there is still no plan in place for the overall management of the Stockton site; that only some of the water monitors are in place and others are planned; and that remediation work has barely begun, and, in fact, is still in the planning stages; if so, why did he not talk to the board earlier about this disgraceful pollution of the Ngākawau River, which has been going on for years?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member says, the pollution has been going on for many, many years. I think it is fair to say that until relatively recent time, many in this industry took no action in terms of remediation in environmental standards. This company is taking action. The member refers to some of the work yet to be done. Some of the equipment is on its way and is yet to be installed. I acknowledged in my first answer that there is still much more to do. I am satisfied that this board is committed to doing the work. I raised the issue with members of the board when I last visited it.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has he received any advice from his colleague the Minister of Conservation that this is Conservation Week and that the theme is: “Conservation needs you!”?

Hon MARK BURTON: I most certainly have. My colleague the Minister of Conservation is active in his work and ensures that every member understands the responsibility.

Race Relations, Coordinating Minister—Indigenous Status

5. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Coordinating Minister, Race Relations: Does he stand by his statement “I regard myself as an indigenous New Zealander—I come from Wainuiōmata.”; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Coordinating Minister, Race Relations): Yes. I suggest that the member reads the speech.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister had any communication with the Prime Minister on his view of himself as indigenous, given her refusal to back him up, and her statement, when asked whether she was indigenous, that she was simply a New Zealander; if so, what did she say?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I have had a number of conversations with the Prime Minister on this, and I think one of the really interesting things about speeches such as the one I gave is that they cause New Zealanders to discuss the sort of country we want in the future.

Darren Hughes: Has the Minister’s point of view been supported by any historians?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the late Michael King’s comment in Being Pakeha Now is quite appropriate: “Like the ancestors of the Māori, they came as immigrants. Like Māori, too, we became indigenous at the point where our focus of identity and commitment shifted to this country and away from our countries and cultures of origin.” I think he put that very well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister have any idea as to how pathetic it must seem internationally when the two old parties have no idea who is native, who is indigenous, and who is a New Zealander, and why cannot they accept the saying of the British Empire that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is the last warning today for that member interjecting. Please carry on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have lost it completely.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, start the question again. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know full well that they will not know, either! Does the Minister not understand how pathetic it must seem internationally when the two old parties spend all their time arguing about who is indigenous, who is native, and who is a New Zealander; and why cannot they accept that “native” means the same as it meant when the British Empire used to say: “The natives are getting restless.”, and get with the 21st century?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the member, as far as the National Party goes, has a point. I thank him for his support, and I will forget why we used to call him Luigi.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That allegation is disgraceful. It was first made by a number of rather envious people at Auckland University, even though I was the Auckland Māori rugby captain, and that is why it is a disgrace.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member that he is always saying we ought to lighten up a little and allow a few comments to be made, and I took it in that nature. But he has drawn attention to something that, strictly speaking, is against the Standing Orders.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of the United Nations’ definition of indigenous people, which refers to communities having “historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Here we go.

Nandor Tanczos: Parliament does not like to hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct. Please be seated. Every member has a perfect right, being properly elected and sworn in in this place, to have his or her question heard. Members will have their points of view heard in silence. I have allowed a little bit of light-heartedness, but I will be sending someone out. If the member wants to ask a question, he is perfectly entitled to.

Nandor Tanczos: There is historical amnesia in Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is unfortunate for the member. The member really should not be allowed to ask the question at this stage, if he is going to make those sorts of comments after I have backed him up. That was a very silly thing to do. I want him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Nandor Tanczos: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the question as you have it written in front of you.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of the United Nations’ definition of indigenous people, which refers to communities having “historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies”, and does he agree that, by that definition, while Pākehā cannot call ourselves indigenous or tangata whenua, we do belong here by right of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and can justly call ourselves tangata tiriti?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: An enormous amount of discussion goes on in that area, but if one took that argument to its logical conclusion, all of those who arrived on a canoe other than the first canoe would not be indigenous.

Hon Ken Shirley: Did the Minister seek the views of his parliamentary colleagues in the Labour Māori caucus prior to giving his speech where he claimed indigenous status; if not, was it because he knew that they disagreed with him—or perhaps he just did not care?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not think anyone would accuse me of not caring. Two of my Māori caucus colleagues read the speech before it was given, and I am told that I am invited to share my views with the rest in the near future.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he think it reflects badly on him as the Minister responsible for the treaty education programme that junior colleagues, like the obedient John Tamihere or the compliant Dover Samuels—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no.

Gerry Brownlee: I will reword it.

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have warned the member. I have already given a warning. He knows that is not in order. He must now come to his question very quickly, and if any of those words are used again, he will not be asking it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So I am not allowed to use words like that, when it is well documented that—

Mr SPEAKER: No, please be seated. The member is running the risk of being asked to leave the House. He will ask his question without those comments. This is question time. He can call those members that in general debate—that is fine—but this is question time. Please ask the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it acceptable for the Minister to refer to a member by a well-known nickname, which the member himself has just said is derogatory, but when we get up to ask a question, using the same Standing Orders, we get shut down?

Mr SPEAKER: I will tell the member why: because I thought that was a humorous remark and so did the member concerned. If I thought there was anything in it that was derogatory, he would not have been able to use it. I know the member well enough to know that what I am saying is perfectly correct. Now, please ask the question properly.

Gerry Brownlee: I think we will leave it and use our question somewhere else. It is a waste of time.

Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave to table the United Nations’ definition of indigenous people.

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

Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave to table a rather good article I wrote about this very matter in March, available on www.greens.org.nz.

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

State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme—Reports

6. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of State Services: Why did the Government introduce the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme, and what reports has he received on its uptake?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): The Government wants to give New Zealanders certainty and security in retirement. It is important that the Government, as a major employer, sets a good example in encouraging retirement savings. Forty-four percent of eligible employees in Government departments and 30 percent of eligible employees in the education sector have taken up the opportunity to join the scheme. Of course, teachers also have another scheme. I note the scheme has been questioned by the Opposition. I am sure the House will be interested to see whether John Key rolls Don Brash on this superannuation issue, as he did with the Superannuation Fund.

Mr SPEAKER: That last sentence is not appropriate. It did not in any way use derogatory terms about the people concerned, but it was unnecessary to the spirit of the answer.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Why is it important for State sector employees to plan and save for their own retirement?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Opposition made it clear last year that it will cut or abolish superannuation for those under 50. Therefore, in the long-term saving may be even more important than it is now.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a complete mistruth and the House should not be subjected to that. When questions are being answered, I think you need to be on the case and make sure that Ministers answer entirely from the perspective of their own portfolios and do not engage in the sort of political speculation that Mr Mallard is so very good at.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: My understanding is that Dr Brash has made it perfectly clear that it is likely the age would be moved under a National Government for those under 50. In terms of age qualification there was no guarantee for anybody aged under 50. That is a cut in the pension.

Mr SPEAKER: I now want the Minister to come to the question asked and answer that part of it without the references he made before.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: For a variety of reasons there is not absolute security in the medium term for people who were aged under 50 last year. I therefore suggest that all employers be good employers and get involved in helping their employees save against the reducing possibility of people who might make that sort of change being involved in Government.

John Key: Can the Minister confirm that the Hon David Cunliffe was correct when he told the annual superannuation fund summit in April of this year that his Government has a firm funding commitment to the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme for only the next 2 years, and after that it was open for negotiation; if so, what assurances can the Minister give State sector employees that the scheme will continue after this date, taking into consideration its disappointing uptake.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The dollars for the first 3 percent subsidy—1.5 percent in the first year, and another 1.5 percent, taking it to 3, in the second year—are baselined out into the future. This is an annual budgeting decision, and I am sure the Tories would cut it like they have cut other pensioners’ superannuation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is a political comment.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why are Ministers allowed to make political comments in answers, but we cannot even describe a Minister as being “obedient” in a question?

Mr SPEAKER: If a member makes a comment like that, of course members are going to be allowed to make political comments—this is Parliament. As far as the answer was concerned, it was not out of order.

Immigration Service —Visas Issued Overseas

7. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: What concerns, if any, has he had about how visas have been granted by immigration officials overseas, and what, if anything, has he done about it?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration): From time to time there are issues raised about how visas are granted by immigration officials overseas. In 2003 the State Services Commission and the Department of Labour commissioned KPMG to review the Immigration Service’s processes for internal investigations. The majority of recommendations arising from the review were implemented by 27 February this year. These include a new integrity policy, improved investigation processes, increased investigation capability, and code of conduct training for all staff.

Dr Muriel Newman: Has the Immigration Service been notified by the police of any scams illegally bringing Pakistanis into New Zealand through Tonga; if not, will he ensure that his service immediately checks with the police and advises him of the result?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I understand there have been a couple of people who were granted visas via Tonga. I am not aware, however, of an allegation about a scam. If the member has some information that she should give me, and she does so, I assure her I will follow it up.

Rodney Hide: Will the Minister ask his service about the police investigation that reported that for $15,000 Pakistani nationals could buy a visa to come to New Zealand via Tonga, and that a ring has been operating in New Zealand to that effect; and will he assure members that, once he has done that, he will explain to the House what he finds out?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am aware that the member has asked a number of written questions around this matter, and I am in the process of providing the information back. No allegation such as the member has outlined has been brought to my attention. If he has information, or if the allegation is brought to my attention, I will certainly make the information available.

Dr Wayne Mapp: How many suspected cases of fraud by New Zealand Immigration Service officials are being investigated, given that departmental papers released in April this year stated “risk-management issues associated with fraud and staff integrity have also increased”, and that 49 staff were investigated for fraud between 2001 and 2003?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not have the actual numbers, but I think it is fair to say that the member knows that often allegations are made about inappropriate behaviour by staff, and the rough percentage I have is that around 60 percent of those are not proven. Of course, some people who make an application off shore, and are not granted a visa, then make an allegation about staff in order to get back at them. It is important that the process is robust, and what I outlined is that we now have a system whereby internal investigations are robust.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister has given information and addressed the question, but I wonder whether he would undertake to provide to the House the actual material that was asked for, which was the number of cases of suspected fraud.

Mr SPEAKER: That is another supplementary question; it is not a point of order. But I will allow the Minister to comment.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: If I could clarify, is the member after the number for this financial year?

Dr Wayne Mapp: That is correct.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I will provide that number to the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister asking Opposition members to provide evidence, when his department has been riddled with fraud and corruption over many years, with numerous cases from as far back as 1996, when an inquiry into Bangladeshi immigration found that hundreds had falsified their academic records, which was proved by the fact that the age of the qualification did not reconcile with the science of the paper on which it was produced; will he produce that in this House, and ensure that the country knows what is going on in his department, and how long it has been going on?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I note that the time the member talks about is probably pretty close to when he himself was Treasurer, and I wonder why he did not do anything about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not interested in entertaining this Minister’s foolishness. The fact is I have asked him a question about a full-scale inquiry conducted by the then National Government that was then dropped like a hot scone when it found that its allegations were baseless and that, worse still, the department was riddled with corruption. It was before the 1996 election. Could he get on with answering the question properly?

Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister now answer the question.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I reject the member’s allegation that the department is riddled with fraud.

Kyoto Protocol—Involvement

8. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: Has he received any reports on whether New Zealand should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change): Yes, I have. Nick Smith MP says we should pull out if Washington says so, but National’s most respected “greenie”, the next but one on National’s list, Mr Guy Salmon, carefully analysed his party’s position and concluded that pulling out would be very, very silly.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What reasons are given for New Zealand standing by its ratification of the protocol?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol would be a disaster for New Zealand business, our reputation abroad, and the environment. Rather than adopting the anti-environment, head-in-the-sand attitude of his colleagues in the National Party, Mr Guy Salmon praises the Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Please just confine yourself to your own policy; you are not commenting on theirs.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does his Government try so hard to avoid giving straight answers to questions in the House, but goes to extraordinary lengths to misrepresent other parties’ policies, or is it the reality that Labour now recognises it is on the ropes and is going as Government, and it is practising its role in Opposition of asking questions about National’s policies?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I could be mistaken now that I am being questioned about another party’s policy, but my understanding is that the National Party’s policy is it will think about pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol unless Madam Washington and Madam Canberra do not. Hiding under the ample skirts of those two capitals seems to be of greater import than furthering the social, economic, and environmental interests of the country that elects those members to this House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is absolutely obvious that the Minister has not read National’s policy, so I seek leave of the House to table it, so that he might read it and be educated on it.

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

Peter Brown: Does the Minister appreciate there are a number of New Zealanders who are concerned about New Zealand signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, and one of the adverse effects is that it is likely to increase the price of a unit of electricity generated from coal; can the Minister advise members whether that is true, and the size of increase?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I can. I can advise that it is current Government policy to introduce a carbon charge not before 2007, which will raise the price of coal, the revenue from which will be recirculated back through the economy, for example, through the tax system. I can also advise the member that the view of Guy Salmon—who is next but one on the National Party’s list—is that: “Far from being disadvantaged in relation to our trading partners, New Zealand is at a distinct advantage.”, and he goes on to conclude: “Notwithstanding the unfounded criticisms made of the protocol, it represents the best way forward.”

Specialist Youth Service Corps Programme—Statistics

9. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: How many young people have completed a Specialist Youth Service Corps programme, and what are the criteria, if any, for young people to become part of this programme?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the Minister of Youth Affairs: The Specialist Youth Service Corps is a new programme being trialled to determine its effectiveness in turning round the attitudes and behaviour of youth at risk. It targets young people where there are problems of parental control; young people who are at risk of school expulsion, benefit dependence, and drug and alcohol abuse; and young people not involved in any positive social activities. They may be referred by the police, the Youth Court, or a family group conference. In 2003-04, in its first year, 86 young people completed the programme.

Hon Tony Ryall: What incentive does this scheme give law-abiding teenagers when repeatedly breaking the law gives one the opportunity to go snowboarding, scuba-diving, rafting, and sailing at the taxpayer’s expense?

Hon PHIL GOFF: For a start, the member’s allegation is absolutely wrong. A local programme in his own region has scuba-diving because the local scuba-diving business, which is community-minded, is providing it free of charge—not subsidised by the taxpayer—for young people who are at risk of going on to a life of criminal offending. It is strongly supported by the local police. The local organisations, the local council, the YMCA, and all of those other organisations are asking why Tony Ryall keeps knocking this programme instead of getting behind it and supporting it like the rest of the community.

Moana Mackey: What other options for youth at risk have been trialled in the past, and what are their outcomes?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is a range of other local options. Some, like Project K, which deals more particularly with young people without self-esteem, also use these sorts of outdoor activities to try to build up the well-being of those young people. Then, of course, there was an approach called “corrective training”. Corrective training sounded quite good because it had boot-camp features. The only trouble is that at the time when National went out of office, 94.5 percent of the young people on that programme were reoffending, and it was costing a small fortune without providing any community safety at all or any improvement in the behaviour of the young people concerned.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does this Government choose to spend taxpayers’ money on Club Med - style programmes for young offenders but refuse to expand proven and effective programmes like the Limited Service Volunteers scheme run by the Army?

Hon PHIL GOFF: In fact, this programme has many features in common with the Limited Service Volunteers programme. Contrary to the member’s claim, the programme for these young people involves literacy and numeracy skills, personal health and fitness, communication skills, anger management, drug and alcohol awareness, and community service for a third of the time. One of the attractions of getting young people who often have not been at school for a year on to this programme is that of getting them to do things that will interest them and give them pro-social activities instead of antisocial activities.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen the project proposal guidelines, which indicate that the Government will pay $6,300 per young offender for challenging recreation activities, including tramping, canoeing, mountain biking, sailing, personal fitness, camping, kayaking, confidence courses, caving, abseiling, rock climbing, and team sports; and what message does that send to law-abiding teenagers, given that his Government will not spend a dollar on any of that for them?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the Minister starts, I do not need a barrage of interjections. Members should at least let him have the first sentence.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Minister for Sport and Recreation could attest to the hundreds of millions of dollars that we are investing in sport and recreation for a cross section of New Zealanders. The cost per young person of this course is $6,000. For that, the taxpayer gets 20 weeks of intensive, full-time activity, followed by 40 weeks of follow-up to try to ensure that the safety-net, the mentoring, and the individual plans are there to prevent the young people concerned getting involved in crime. That would be one of the cheapest courses we run. If a young person ends up in a residence with supervision, it costs $120,000 to keep him or her in custody.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that one of the alternatives of such a programme would be prison; and can he also confirm that Mr Tony Ryall is opposed to prisons within in his own area?

Mr SPEAKER: Only the first part of the question can be answered.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Can the member repeat the question?

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have forgotten what the first part was.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think we are going to forget about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the funding stream for Ngā Hau e Whā in Christchurch, on which the National Party spent $14 million, of which $6 million went into thin air.

Document not tabled.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek leave to table a letter dated 3 March 2004 from the sergeant of Tauranga youth services to the Tauranga YMCA, which runs that programme, stating that it is a recognised, credible provider of community programmes, has a positive relationship with the police, and a proven track record.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the Ministry of Youth Affairs’ project proposal guidelines, which detail the substantial recreational activities the Government will pay for.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: Secondly, I seek leave to table that part of the ministerial taskforce on youth offending in which Judge Carruthers recommended an expansion of the Limited Service Volunteers programme, something the Government has failed to do.

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek leave of the House to table the full YMCA programme, which shows that recreation is one aspect of many that are being provided to stop these young people from reoffending.

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

Chief Censor—Ministerial Confidence

10. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he have confidence in the chief censor, Bill Hastings; if so, why?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, he is a proven chief censor.

Peter Brown: How can the Minister have confidence in a censor who has just cleared a film for general release, albeit with an R18 restriction, that contains brutal sexual violence, including a 9-minute anal rape scene, for screening in cinemas around this country?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I am advised that in the last 2 financial years, nine decisions by the Office of Film and Literature Classification have been upheld by the Film and Literature Board of Review. He is doing a very good job. If anything, the board says he is a little soft.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen any reports about the performance of the chief censor?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. Even the deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, Peter Brown, earlier this year in a press release headed “The Censor is right this time”, sang his praises. Mr Brown went on to state: “I believe the Censor was right when he classified the controversial film ‘The Passion of Christ’ as R16,”.

Peter Brown: Going back to the Minister’s earlier answer when he said the censor is a little too soft, is he telling this House he is quite comfortable with the censor’s decision to allow a brutally, sexually violent movie, described by critics as “near-unbearable, despicable violence”, and to condone it by suggesting exhibitors provide numbers for Rape Crisis and sexual abuse services at the end of the film?

Mr SPEAKER: That question can be answered.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I have not seen the film. I do not know whether the member has seen it, but this is probably a very good way of advertising it so that more people are curious about it. But I have to say that the censor’s decisions are appealed, if needed, to the Film and Literature Board of Review. It is a process, it works, and, of course, the censor has been right most of the time.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table the censor’s decision on this particular film.

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

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table certain media statements outlining the effects of this particular film on audiences.

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

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I seek leave to table a document that states: “The Censor is right this time”, a media release by Peter Brown earlier this year.

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

World Trade Organization—Geneva Meeting

11. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: What benefits for New Zealand have resulted because of our attendance at the World Trade Organization meeting in Geneva, which ended Sunday, our time?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): We got to first base at Doha in 2002, and to second base in Geneva last week. There will need to be a lot of negotiation before we get to third base, which is the so-called modalities phase, and fourth base, which should be a treaty capable of enforcement in law. I believe we could get there by 2006. Implementation is likely to be phased in over several years after that.

David Parker: When will the benefits flow if these negotiations succeed?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The World Trade Organization’s membership has approved the framework for negotiations of a multilateral deal that includes the end of export subsidies, which are the most pernicious mechanisms distorting the international trade in agricultural goods. Initial estimates are that this aspect alone, provided it goes on to be implemented, could be worth $1 billion a year, or more, to New Zealand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Would the Minister be prepared to pay tribute in the House today to the outstanding work done by New Zealand’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Tim Groser, who so skilfully chaired the committee on agriculture to achieve this vitally important breakthrough for New Zealand?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do pay tribute to Ambassador Groser, and indeed to the entire New Zealand team, which is world class, at Geneva. I note that the member who asked the question has paid tribute to Tim Groser. He was reported as claiming him as an old friend, but then misspelt his name.

Rod Donald: What impact does the Minister expect the end of export subsidies—which the Greens support—and the higher export prices New Zealand farmers hope to earn as a result, to have on the cost to New Zealanders of a pint of milk, a block of cheese, and the family roast in the future?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not think it is possible to give a sensible answer to that question. All I can say is that the large view is looking much more promising than before. Myself, though, I have trouble in thinking quite as small as the member.

Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)—Primary Production Committee

12. IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Is he satisfied with the quality of the advice given by Ministry of Fisheries officials to the Primary Production Committee during the committee’s consideration of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4); if so, why?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): Yes, I am aware that officials worked hard to provide the committee with the information that it requested, often at very short notice and of a highly technical nature.

Ian Ewen-Street: Does the Minister have confidence in the officials who, on 17 June, gave the select committee three different versions of the proposed scampi quota allocations within 3 hours, including an initial version that was largely blank; if so, why?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am aware of the specifics of that instance, and it illustrates exactly what I said about the extreme pressure, at my request and at the request of the chairman of the committee, that those officials were working under.

Russell Fairbrother: What weight has the Government given to the Primary Production Committee’s recommendation on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Government has accepted the Primary Production Committee’s recommendation on this bill, and the bill will proceed, I hope, through the Committee of the whole House today in the form recommended by the select committee.

Phil Heatley: What changes to quota will result from the new schedule that changes the scampi quota management area boundary between areas 3 and 4?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Ministry of Fisheries is currently finalising advice to me after consulting on a proposal to increase the catch limits in new areas 3 and 4 from a combined total of 310 tonnes to 460 tonnes, which includes more than doubling the Crown quota in new area 3. That increase is possible only because the existing management boundaries are being changed in this bill. Depending on the catch limit finally set in new area 4, there is also potential for quota to be allocated to the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust under the new boundary arrangements.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister explain the basis for changing the boundaries between scampi quota management areas 3 and 4 under the bill?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: As part of the process to bring scampi into the quota management system, the Ministry of Fisheries sought independent scientific advice on the best future management regime for the fishery. The proposed changes are based on the strong recommendations of that advice. Scientific analysis of catch rates, by-catch, and scampi biology provide evidence that scampi on the Mernoo Bank and the north-west Chatham Rise are one population and should be managed as such. Under the old boundaries, that population is split in two. The benefit of the new management boundaries is that I can sustainably provide more quota than under the old boundaries, because I can provide for new areas to be developed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about the Primary Production Committee’s consideration of the bill, how appropriate does the Minister think it is that Mr Ewen-Street removed himself from the select committee on the evidence, because of a conflict of interest, yet deliberated on the bill?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for that particular issue. However, that issue can be raised in debate shortly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether he was satisfied with the quality of advice given to him by the ministry officials, but the question is about the committee during its deliberation and consideration of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4).

Mr SPEAKER: No, he was asked about his officials’ contribution.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about an answer, anyway?

Mr SPEAKER: We will be able to have a debate soon.

Ian Ewen-Street: In light of the fact that both the select committee inquiry and the State Services Commission inquiry questioned the relationship between the ministry and Simunovich Fisheries, why do the proposed boundary changes to the quota management areas give Simunovich Fisheries an increase in its quota allocation that is greater than the total allocation of almost all the other fishers in the industry?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Because the boundaries are calculated on the basis of science, and not the intent to privilege any particular operator. The member will be interested to know that the percentage increase in the Simunovich Fisheries quota is less than many other fishers are receiving.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like a chance to ask my question. You say—and, on reflection, I believe that you are right—that I had focused on the wrong area, in terms of where the Minister’s responsibilities lie.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member a chance. I am generous today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did any of the Minister’s officials express amazement and astonishment that someone was on the committee for the deliberations who had absented himself at the time of the hearings on evidence, because of an admitted known conflict of interest?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: That view was expressed to me, and I must say that I share it.

Ian Ewen-Street: Why is the ministry not excluding the catch histories of the Simunovich Fisheries vessels Drysdale and Petersen from quota allocation calculations, when the State Services Commission report makes it clear that they were not properly permitted by the ministry at the time they were fishing for catch history?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not sure that the member’s interpretation of the State Services Commission report is accurate. At the request of the chairman of the committee, Mr Carter, we did discuss that issue, and it provided no rational or sensible pathway forward.

Ian Ewen-Street: I seek the leave of the House to table the documents that were presented to the select committee by the ministry officials.

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

Bills

Building Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Commerce (Hon John Tamihere): I move, That the Building Bill be now read a second time. I acknowledge the thorough consideration given by the Government Administration Committee to the bill in light of the complex nature of the issues involved. I also thank those who took the time to make submissions to the committee. The bill is a culmination of an extensive review and a thorough consultation process, and represents a complementary and an integrated package for the regulation of building work in New Zealand. While weathertightness issues acted as a catalyst for that work, the Hunn report showed a much wider examination of building controls was needed in order to make sure that we had a regulatory framework that met the needs of both industry and consumers. The bill addresses issues raised in the select committee inquiry and establishes a balanced regulatory framework for the building industry, which consumers and the industry have been seeking. I am greatly indebted to the former Minister, Lianne Dalziel, who introduced the bill to the House, and to the Hon. Margaret Wilson. Lianne Dalziel previously outlined the initiatives contained in the bill. I highlight the fact that the bill does strengthen the regulatory framework and has a strong focus on consumer protection.

The select committee has reported back the bill. It supports the key principles behind it, and recommends a number of amendments to reflect better the underlying policy intent and ensure the workability of the proposals. The main changes from the committee include the following: promoting the efficient and sustainable use of materials in buildings, establishing an advisory panel to the chief executive, clarifying the chief executive’s role in the accreditation of building consent authorities, new consultation processes on mandatory requirements, mechanisms to enhance coordination with other legislation—including the Historic Places Act and the Resource Management Act—in the granting of building consents, revised provisions for the licensing of building practitioners, revised provisions to enhance the workability of the dam safety regime, and revised provisions to clarify the status of code compliance certificates. Code compliance certificates will now be assessed against the relevant building consent, rather than against the building code. That is aimed at preventing people from being caught out by changes to the building code since the relevant consent was issued.

The select committee has also recommended including new provisions set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 to increase protection for consumers when buying household units from developers. They include a requirement for property developers to obtain a code compliance certificate before completing the sale of a household unit or allowing the purchaser of a household unit to enter into possession of that unit, and extending the scope of the consumer protection provisions currently in the bill to cover sales of household units by property developers.

I note with interest that the National Party has indicated that it will not be supporting the bill. That is particularly disappointing, when we have such immediate evidence of the distress that occurs when people’s homes are not built properly. I commend this bill, as reported back from the Government Administration Committee, to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): The Building Bill will introduce a very prescriptive regulatory regime. When we look at the size of this bill we can see that it is an overkill as a consequence of the issue of weathertightness in leaky buildings. The bill contains 358 pages. We could have had a tidying-up of the Building Act with a bit of twinking here and some changes there, because there were some points in that legislation that needed to be corrected, but this bill is an overkill. It will add significant costs to all construction work and further compliance costs for residential buildings, in particular. Those areas will be hit the most. It will potentially affect economic growth, due to significant increases in building application costs for applicants and in compliance costs for both applicants and local authorities in respect of accreditation. We will see widespread bypassing of the new do-it-yourself regime, which goes against the Kiwi ethic and spirit of being able to get out there and do something for oneself.

The construction industry in New Zealand is an $8 billion industry. In terms of economic activity the industry is huge throughout the whole country. In addition to housing it encompasses apartment buildings, high-rise office blocks, shopping malls, hospitals, factories, wharves, bridges, warehouses, mills, and agricultural buildings. It is an enormously complex industry, spanning the entire economy and society as a whole. The impacts of this bill will be adverse on many of those sectors. In fact, the economic impact of this bill will lead to significant increases in labour costs. There is already a short supply of skilled trades people—especially bricklayers—and because there has been a short supply of those people, they have been able to name their price. We have seen huge price increases in that particular trade. If we look at the comparative building costs between here and Australia, we see that the cost of building an executive home in Auckland is $2,300 per square metre, but in Adelaide the cost is $1,170 per square metre. There are huge differences in the costs of construction between Australia and Auckland. To construct a module home of 120 square metres on a flat section that would normally take, say, 4 months to build—that is the minimum construction time—under this legislation will require supervision of 5 hours per week, with a total of 85 hours of construction time. The estimated cost of that supervision, just to meet the new requirements of this bill, will be between $6,500 and $10, 000.

Will this legislation improve and enhance customer safety and satisfaction? Will customers be protected? In my view the answer is no. The bill will lead to delays, fuel inflation, and most probably to illegal construction work, as people look to bypass this very heavy-handed regulatory regime. A very considerable shortage of skilled personnel will impact on the number of licensed building practitioners available from 1 July 2009, when that part of the bill becomes law. That will be noticeable in rural areas, and will have an adverse economic and social effect on owner-builders and farming communities. The traditional Kiwi attitude towards building one’s own home, farm building, or backyard shed is compromised by the very prescriptive nature of this bill. Clause 173 states that licensed building practitioners must carry out or supervise building work. That is a huge change. In the past work has had to be inspected, but this bill talks about “carry out” or “supervise”, not inspect. It states that a licensed building inspector must carry out or supervise work. What does “supervise” mean? We could try this for a definition: the inspector has seen it with his or her own eyes. This is where the bill becomes so prescriptive that everything that happens will have to require a licensed building practitioner to supervise—not inspect, but supervise—construction.

What will happen to buildings that are prefabricated—that is, barns, bridges, glasshouses, or hothouses? They will require building consents, and building work will need to be carried out or supervised by a licensed building practitioner. The firms that specialise in prefabricated buildings can expect to see huge costs. My view is that additional costs of 10 to 15 percent could occur in those particular areas, and we will probably also see, of course, that the viability of those businesses may well become suspect. We can look at the other costs that we will see with buildings, and with houses in particular—because I mentioned that it would be small houses that would be most affected. A cost-benefit analysis was done, and the report suggested that the cost of building a 150 square-metre home would increase by 2.9 percent. It is my view that that figure is well out of line. It is too low, and it should probably be in the vicinity of 12 to 15 percent. These are the things that will have to be taken into account if one is to have a new home built.

Any person assuming liability as a principal licensed building practitioner for the overall supervision of building works will need to have wide knowledge and competencies, as well as substantial professional indemnity insurance, if he or she is able to get it. The labour component of a typical dwelling is approximately 35 to 40 percent. The labour component will bear the brunt of the increases, as it responds more readily to supply and demand. Industry registration will have an impact on the immediate availability of skilled trades people, because many will simply not wish to formally upskill in order to meet the requirements to become licensed, and will leave the industry. The training industry does not have the resources to meet the expected demand from those who may wish to upskill in order to meet the new registration requirements. Consumers will demand the employment of those who immediately meet the registration requirements, placing undue demand and workload pressures on too few trades people unless the licensing registration process is to be stepped.

We have other major concerns that I want to look at. The first relates to natural hazards as found in clause 159(3). In that particular clause a natural hazard has been defined as erosion, falling debris, slippage, and a number of other matters that I will not go into. That is how a “natural hazard” is referred to in clause 159. In the Building Act subsidence is included, but it is excluded in this bill. We believe that subsidence should be included. It is a natural hazard, but under this bill local authorities will be unable to refuse to issue consents on the grounds that the land is subject to subsidence, and, more important, will be unable to issue building consents with the protection of non-liability provisions such as those found in clause 344.

The omission of subsidence from the definition potentially exposes ratepayers and developers to very high-risk damages to property. In my own electorate of Piako we have potential subsidence in housing areas around the Huntly area. In Waihī we have seen houses disappear down old gold shafts. In Taupō, where there is geothermal activity, there are also major concerns. At the present time councils are able to control construction on subsiding land. Many structures can accommodate subsidence, provided they are designed and constructed properly. However, under this bill councils will not have those controls available to them, as subsidence is not included in the definition of a natural hazard. We believe that that is one of the major issues, and is a huge compliance cost and risk that councils will face.

The bill does nothing to give consumer protection, and adds absolutely nothing. National is opposed to this bill.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): I rise in support of the second reading of the Building Bill. The background, as most of us know, is the leaky homes problem that we had in Auckland. In its report last year, the Government Administration Committee looked into, and identified, a number of problems that needed legislative changes to address them. The principal issue was the need to bring the regulation of building matters back within a Government ministry, so that the Government could have some control and therefore take some responsibility for things when they go wrong. One of the issues we have seen in the last few years has been the withdrawal of councils from all but the most modest supervision of building projects, perhaps because they feared legal liability if they did more than the minimum. As a consequence, the risk for consumers of unlicensed building practitioners has grown. At the same time as we have seen a rise in unqualified builders, there has been a decline in the level of supervision, perhaps, from councils. The Government has decided that it is wise to introduce a licensing regime for building practitioners, to guard against those risks.

We heard Mr Tisch say that we have a problem in New Zealand with a lack of skilled trades people. That is true. What he did not mention was that that was because of the abandonment of traditional apprenticeships in the 1990s. They have been re-established only in the last 4 to 5 years by the Labour-led Government, and the introduction of Modern Apprenticeships will assist in resolving the problem of qualified staff. But in the meantime it is appropriate that we license building practitioners and bring the regulation of this area of work back within a ministry, and then look at the building code to see whether some of the previously permitted forms of building ought to be more tightly regulated.

I recommend the bill to the House.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I have pleasure in rising on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Building Bill. We consider that the Building Act of 1991 was basically sound, but just a little light-handed in its approach. However, it was grossly under-resourced and grossly under-administered by the regulations of the building code. The fact that it was under-regulated meant that too many of the requirements under the building code were badly administered, which led to the introduction of products such as untreated timber. Untreated timber on its own is not a bad thing; however, when untreated timber is combined with products that it is not designed to be administered with, we have a major problem. That is what happened with the building code—it allowed products to be combined in a manner that had not been intended. The Building Act basically left the administration up to the Building Industry Authority, which refused or failed to administer it properly. The authority did not recognise the deficiencies within the code or the Act, and therefore we ended up with what is known as the leaky homes debacle.

The weathertight homes inquiry, which was set up at the end of 2002, made quite a large number of recommendations, many of which, unfortunately, have been ignored in the review of the Building Act. Contrary to David Parker’s suggestion that the inquiry report advocated doing away with the Building Industry Authority and bringing it back into the ministry, it actually said that the best idea was to retain the Building Industry Authority but to give it the teeth and the powers to act proactively, so that when there are problems the authority does not sit on its hands and do nothing. That is what had happened, and the leaky homes debacle was a result. Unfortunately, the authority will now be lost within the whole ministry, and there will be some problems of people duck-shoving and blaming others for problems. I guess the Government wants to take the Building Industry Authority out of the equation because it is hanging in the wind, facing many potential libel suits, and I think the Government wants to liquidate those—just as many developers have had to liquidate their companies.

As a result of the review we have ended up with quite a large bill—358 pages and 386 clauses. It is a monster, and it will take some time before the industry is able to come to grips with it, particularly the licensing regime. But without it we would be heading towards another leaky homes crisis. That is the reason New Zealand First considers that the bill is worth supporting. We think it is a little overprescriptive, but we would prefer to have it prescriptive rather than allow another crisis such as we saw, with tens of thousands of people suffering from leaky homes. I believe that there are a lot of homes with the same problem that have not been reported or discovered as yet.

New Zealand First agrees with the concept of licensed building practitioners. However, we are concerned with the overprescriptiveness of the bill in this area. New Zealand First is mindful of the statistics that show that the average age of the workforce in the building and construction industry worldwide is recognised to be between 45 and 50 years. That is unbelievable. It means there are no younger people coming through to take the places of those who leave. We feel that if the licensing regime is not handled very carefully by the chief executive, it may result in people who are getting towards the end of their working life—who are somewhere in the mid-50s—leaving rather than retraining. Many of them are concerned about the licensing regime, and they do not want to be forced into a retraining programme or into sitting more exams. They are highly skilled and they are worthwhile retaining. Those people are nervous, and we do not want to see them moving out of the industry early, through either retirement, or their moving to an alternative industry, or, even worse, their moving across to Australia to help the Australian workforce—or even further afield. The building industry in New Zealand is desperately short of skilled workers, not only to build but also to train and pass on that knowledge. Those people need to be considered and retained, and the chief executive must be mindful of that difficulty and keep that skill base in the industry.

We also need to be careful of the need to support that wonderful New Zealand concept of DIY. In the bill originally, there was a set figure of $10,000, which, if exceeded, meant that the work had to be done by a licensed building practitioner. That concept has now been widened considerably to include the integrity of the outer skin of the building—the outer envelope—and any structural walls within it. Those must continue to be done by a licensed building practitioner. However, the DIY’er is quite welcome to continue renovating a room—upgrading it or rebuilding it—provided that the work does not interfere with the integrity of the outer skin and the structural walls.

Another issue that New Zealand First is concerned about is phoenix companies. We are very disappointed that this bill does not go anywhere near preventing—or even attempting to prevent—phoenix companies from forming under a specific development name or for a specific development project, then liquidating at the end of the project in order to avoid any responsibilities. What is more, there is a growing trend of companies being formed for a specific construction—companies that do not have any assets. The assets are owned by another company put together by the same directors, which leases the equipment, all the manpower, and so on to the first company. Ultimately, when the first company is liquidated all the assets remain hidden behind another company. That is a blatant attempt to avoid responsibilities. In many cases, by using that scheme, companies avoid the payment of subcontractors, as the subcontractors do not have any access to the assets of the developers. So New Zealand First is very concerned that nothing was put into this bill to help that situation. We were assured by the chairman of the Government Administration Committee that that matter would be dealt with by another bill, but we are disappointed that it is not dealt with in this one. We acknowledge that the Independent, which picked up on our report on the bill, was also very keen to see that happen.

New Zealand First will support this bill and its position.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill, and we are very pleased to do so. As other speakers have remarked, this bill emerged as a result of the inquiry into leaky buildings, which I participated in. The inquiry contained shocking revelations about the number of New Zealanders who had their lives destroyed by finding themselves in homes that had not been properly built. The leaky building crisis amply demonstrated that the building industry was not properly regulated. Basically, this bill seeks to ensure that consumers have proper protection and that there is proper regulation in the building industry.

The Green Party is very pleased that many of the amendments we proposed relating to health and energy efficiency were added to the bill. We are delighted that sustainable development and health have been added to the purpose clause, and that amongst the principles that must be taken into account when administering the bill are issues of heritage, energy conservation and efficiency, the use of renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, the efficient use of material, and waste reduction. As we are all only too well aware, energy shortages are fast becoming a way of life. We are looking at damming our rivers by building new hydro stations, yet even basic things such as insulation are not being done. Half our houses are not even properly insulated, despite the fact that research shows that people who live in well-insulated homes have much better health, and that children who live in uninsulated homes are twice as likely to experience asthma and take days off school because of colds and flu. Research also shows that there are huge energy savings to be made from properly insulated homes. So why are we not addressing these very basic things, and, for example, providing incentives to insulate New Zealand homes, rather than wanting magic-bullet solutions such as building new dams?

Buildings and houses use large amounts of resources—concrete, steel, wood, and so forth. They have a large ecological footprint, so any sustainable future must consider their impact. When we build our houses and buildings we supposedly build them to last for 50 to 100 years—apart from some of these terrible leaky buildings, which may not last even 7 years. Basically, if we are to build them to last for a very long period of time, then anything we can do to make them more energy efficient will pay off over time in terms of reduced energy use. That will benefit the whole of New Zealand as well as individual homeowners. Huge energy savings could be made for the entire nation if we reduced energy use by doing just simple things such as installing proper insulation and solar heating.

So although we are pleased that energy efficiency and the efficient use of materials are now principles that must be taken into account in administering the bill, we do not believe that that goes nearly far enough in the context of New Zealand’s ongoing energy difficulties. The bill states that they must be taken into account, but we believe that it should direct the chief executive to give higher priority and attention to issues of energy efficiency and conservation. We would like to see a system of energy ratings for all new homes, so that anyone buying a home knows how energy efficient, or inefficient, it is. Only the other day I was told of someone who had bought a very smart, fancy new home, and was absolutely aghast when, after 1 month, a power bill came in amounting to $1,200. The new owners had no idea they had bought such a grotesquely energy-inefficient home. Another problem, we believe, is that the bill applies only to new houses and buildings and not to existing ones. We believe that any significant alterations to existing homes should be required to match the energy-efficiency standards in the building code, just as they match the fire safety and disability access standards. We will be moving amendments to that effect.

We also believe that territorial authorities should have been given the power, if they wish, to set standards that are higher than those in the building code, for reasons of resource conservation. Territorial authorities in different parts of the country may wish to set higher standards for energy efficiency or water conservation than the standards found in the code, but, unfortunately, the provisions of this bill prevent that. Again, that is something we shall seek to rectify through amendments to this bill.

We are particularly pleased that, for the first time, the chief executive of the new building department will be required by this bill to take into account the health effects of building materials and products, as a result of amendments proposed by the Green Party. It is nothing short of astonishing that at present there is no requirement for the thousands of building products used in constructing our homes and buildings to be registered, let alone assessed for their health effects. I actually had to write questions for written answer and ask for a briefing on this. Unfortunately, the answer came back that, basically, no building materials used in New Zealand are assessed for their health effects, although nine building products out of the thousands on the market are accredited, and, apparently, in that accreditation process some health issues are looked at. That is literally nine out of thousands on the market.

We know that buildings are built with large amounts of highly toxic substances. The treatment used in preserving timber is the most well-known example, but there are large numbers of others, such as resins, glues, flame retardants, particle board, which gives off gas, and formaldehyde, which was recently classified as a carcinogen, not to mention other health concerns, such as moulds, fungi, and staphylococcus. If we look at flame retardants, for example, we find there are about 173 types of fire retardants on the market. Some of them are carcinogenic. Fire retardants migrate from the material they are used in and are released into the environment, yet the Building Industry Authority could not even provide answers as to which ones are used in New Zealand, let alone what it thought the health effects might be. The building code says things like “gas emitted from building materials should not give rise to harmful concentrations”, but there is nothing that we are aware of to enforce that. The fact is that indoor air can be more polluted than outdoor air. We spend about 80 percent of our time indoors, so we are exposed to indoor pollutants for long periods of time. We have a whole new proposed national environmental standard for air quality, but it is silent on indoor air quality. A number of submitters pointed out to us that they believe that this is an extremely serious issue, which will become a major health concern that we will be forced to address in time.

It is interesting that many people spend a lot of effort trying to keep their homes clean and so forth, and they are not aware of the risk being posed to their health by building materials that are not healthy. Really, what we are saying is we have to create indoor environments that are healthy for occupants, and that use as many natural products as possible—that use sunlight, renewable energy, new technologies, and so forth.

Construction and demolition waste is a major contributor to the large amount of waste that is sent every year to our landfills. Some estimate it contributes about 17 percent. So we are extremely pleased that the need for waste conservation has been added to the bill. Heritage is another issue. The whole bill was silent on heritage. We heard submissions that suggested that the bill could be used to destroy literally hundreds of heritage buildings around New Zealand. So, once again, the Green Party initiated amendments that seek to protect our heritage buildings in New Zealand, while at the same time requiring them to be earthquake strengthened.

We strongly support the registration of builders. We believe that it will do much to address the leaky building crisis. We do have concerns, which have been expressed by others, about the effect of the new regulations on owner-builders. We believe that they are probably excessive, and that, in a way, owner-builders are being penalised by the provisions of this bill, when they are not the ones who created the leaky building crisis that this bill intends to resolve—it was the developers. We also have concerns about the continuance of private building inspectors. We believe that they do not offer the consumer protection provided by local authority building inspectors.

Overall, despite those reservations, we believe that the bill offers much greater protection for consumers and homeowners, and for that reason we are happy to support the bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to speak on the second reading of the Building Bill. We were not on the Government Administration Committee that considered the bill. As I look at the huge report produced by that committee, and the pathetic analytical quality of it, I am rather proud to have been able to avoid being associated with such a parody of process.

I look at the dissenting reports and I have to say that in 5 years’ time, when its impact is at its greatest, probably no one will remember those warnings. People will take it as just another one of those mysteries as to why it costs so much more to get a house in New Zealand, why people emigrate, why they feel poorer in New Zealand. No one will remember those warnings. I have to say that I believe that New Zealand First has made the most sensible comments; the National comments, while they are good comments, would have been helped if they had been a little more expansive—and it does surprise me.

Shane Ardern: More are coming.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am glad to hear that more are coming from the National Party. I have to say that the United Future contribution is also extensive. I wonder whether the committee allowed it to be indulgently long because in it that party betrays itself. It is such economic nonsense.

A Government body went out and got a professional cost-benefit report, which says this bill will add—and I would imagine it would be conservative, because it would not want to be scaremongering—an average of 2.9 percent to building costs across the board. Then we look at the benefits: 0.3 percent. It is almost elementary.

Common sense tells us that although this bill is the response to the leaky building syndrome, its biggest impact is probably on New Zealand’s culture; on the assumption that used to underpin this country that we could do anything that was not expressly prohibited, that we did not have to ask anyone if we could do the normal things in life. I suggest that probably many members of this House have had the satisfaction that I have had over the last couple of years of building a substantial building. There is very little that can be more satisfying than going to bed exhausted having puzzled one’s way through construction problems, then getting up the next morning and undoing some of what was done the previous day because one had got it wrong, then calling in the neighbour who is a builder, or calling in someone else who has expertise, and asking how to do it. That is at the very essence of being a New Zealand man. I think it is hilarious that this bill is sponsored by that red-blooded man Tamihere, who believes that men need support groups and Government agencies to help them be men. He thinks that only official, authorised, licensed builders should be allowed to build.

We have a bill that, on the very face of the report, is tripe in terms of its analysis. I believe that Mr Roy Hanns is a very reliable and experienced man in this area. I look at his submission and see that he thinks approximately 0.1 percent, maybe 1 percent in the worst areas, of new buildings have been affected by leaky building syndrome. Let us assume that they are all total write-offs. Let us assume that the people ought to be fully compensated, irrespective of whether they went to shonky builders in the first place or did not take any precautions. Let us assume that the owners should bear no responsibility whatsoever. Let us assume also that this experience has no demonstration effect—in other words, that, out of this, people have not changed their attitude towards building. Let us assume that the new Building Act requirement will save all those kinds of problems in the future, and fully compensate those who have suffered. On the numbers, the benefit will be one-tenth of the cost. We could provide to every owner of a leaky building 10 entirely new houses, for the cost of this Building Act.

United Future’s laughable analysis says that it is going to look after all these people, that it would have made sure they had good buildings, that we should never have deregulated, and that the fact that building inspectors cannot get insurance is a reason to put the whole responsibility on local authorities. Well, I say to United Future that the reason they cannot get insurance is that the insurers know that these kinds of risks happen, that there will be bad builders unless we totally gold plate the industry, that there will be unanticipated effects, and that there will be losses. To insure them is simply too expensive for any commercial person to take the risk.

So where is the Father Christmas going to come from? Well, United Future knows all about that. It comes from rates. Rates of course, in United Future’s world, are the answer to all problems. Rates are the answer to United Future’s image problem at the moment. United Future wants the Government to take GST off rates; it thinks that will appeal to people, who do not realise that their rates will go up by three or four times the rate of inflation. Taking off GST is simply a way of forcing everyone else to subsidise the inefficiencies of local authorities. United Future would rather add the entire inspection role, under this new Building Act, to local authorities, and pretend that the cost had just disappeared, because it meant that one did not have to get insurance. It does not seem to have crossed those members’ minds that the entire cost would then fall on ratepayers, many of whom would have no intention of building, or would have taken all the precautions necessary to have a safe building, and most of whom would be wondering why their rates were so much higher than they ever used to be in the past.

This Buildings Bill will be the end of do-it-yourself building. This legislation requires that councils, when they are administering it, go through the Greens’ wish list. They will have to take into account heritage, energy conservation and efficiency, use of renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, efficient use of materials, and waste reduction. So from now on, when the guy or the woman—many women have enjoyed building, too—builds the deck, or puts up the kitset farm building, or extends the house, that work will have to be done by a building practitioner. We know what will actually happen inside houses: whether or not alterations are structural, people will stop going for consents. As long as the work cannot be observed in a satellite photo, New Zealanders will deal with this law in the way that they have always done—by hiding the work completely from the authorities. But let us assume that it is work that cannot be hidden from the authorities, and will be obvious in a satellite photo. That work will have to be done by a member of this new profession of registered building practitioners.

The word “builder”, I take it, was just too simple for words; did the select committee consider it? I have a young builder friend who is really looking forward to being a building practitioner. He is quite aware of the monopoly rents that will accrue to those in this rare category as they take a much easier life, and swan around looking at other people’s work. He is quite confident that over time, as disasters continue to occur—United Future, the Labour Party, and the Mr Parkers of this world having increased the rules and having promised people that these sorts of things will never happen again—as a building practitioner he will get himself into the sort of privileged position that until now has been held by people like surveyors, lawyers, and others who do not need to dirty their hands but make a living out of interfering in those who do.

That is what this bill is about; it is about a bunch of probably mostly well-intentioned but politically ambitious people being Father Christmas to homeowners—that is, offering them the myth of the costless solution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member I remind members that cellphones are to be switched off in the Chamber. I heard cellphones ring in two instances.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): The ACT member said he was glad he was not part of the select committee. Unfortunately, ACT’s contribution shows ignorance of the issues because of its absence from the select committee. For the first time in my life I have to state that Mr Franks simply does not know what he is talking about. While this bill has emerged from the weathertight homes crisis, it was clear that that was not the sole problem that needed to be addressed; the problems were more systematic and went further than leaking homes. The Building Act 1991, particularly in conjunction with changes to the Local Government Act in 1989, meant that the prescriptive regime of the pre-1991 days became a very laissez-faire regime. In the absence of adequate supervision we got ourselves into a situation where anything went and we found that the old maxim “safe as houses” was effectively an irony.

This required a rebalancing and I believe that this bill is a responsible answer that is largely welcomed by all facets of the building industry. It is a beginning, however, and I am sure that, given the comprehensive nature of the bill, gaps in the framework will appear and amendments will be necessary.

In the absence of the Minister, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that the Ministry of Economic Development, and Suzanne Townsend in particular, put into this bill. She has lived the bill for more than 2 years, and if anybody’s name were to be put on the top of it, it would have to be hers. It is a complicated bill that she has spent hours—and no doubt sleepless hours—in getting through.

There is one area that I want to address, and that is the area of private building certifiers. United Future is not opposed to private building certifiers per se. In fact, I was one of the first lawyers in New Zealand to have private property inspection reports as standard conditions in sale and purchase agreements, rather than simply relying on council records. I also strongly advocated private clerks of works, rather than relying on building inspectors. So I have always been supportive of the private industry in this area. However, here United Future is the messenger. We are not putting down private building certifiers; we are simply the guy waving his arms on the highway to tell the truck to stop because there is a washed-out bridge around the corner. For private building certifiers, territorial authorities, and homeowners the bridge of private building consent authority registration has been washed out, but the Government is bent on having people fall into the chasm, rather than directing them to the bypass.

The facts are simple. The bill provides for a continuation of private building certifiers, with enhanced responsibilities. The territorial authorities will not be involved at all, once private building certifiers take on the work, because the private certifiers will carry out all the work. Therefore, territorial authorities will not have liability where private building certifiers have handled the work from building certificates and building consents through to code compliance certificates. That is a misleading and falsely optimistic view given to private building certifiers, because clause 41(1) states: “Before entering a person’s name in the appropriate register,”—as a building consent authority—“the chief executive must be satisfied that— . . . (c) in the case of a person who wishes to be registered as a building consent authority but who is not a territorial authority, the person has adequate means to cover any civil liabilities that may arise in the performance of the functions of a building consent authority.”

It is with those words “adequate means to cover any civil liabilities” that the whole thing falls down, because in order to do that, the private building certifier would need to have assets available to be sued upon of at least $1 million, or professional indemnity insurance. The requirement for professional indemnity insurance, I think, is a sound one. As a regulatory body the certifier is the independent auditor that ensures that everyone has done his or her job. Contrary to Mr Franks, I believe that where a regulatory body takes on that responsibility it is absolutely imperative that it has adequate back-up for the public interest so that houses are built soundly to protect future purchasers and the community good.

In the case of the public body that is a regulatory body, the taxpayer backs it through rates or through a national tax system. In the case of private bodies there must be insurance or other financial back-up.

In Australia the select committee in Canberra had the opportunity to talk to the Australian Building Codes Board, which is the foremost authority in this area in Australia and carries considerable weight. The executive director of that board, Ivan Donaldson, is a guru in the area of building work and he said to us: “You wouldn’t have private certification if you didn’t have recourse to insurance. If you can’t get professional indemnity cover, you can’t have private building certifiers.”

That is where we should be sitting, as a nation. The minimum criterion for private indemnity cover is that it must be adequate. After all, $1 million is likely to cover only five houses. It must provide cover for at least 10 years, because that is the extent of liability in New Zealand. In fact, some say that liability should extend to the life of the house, which, in structural terms, is 60 years. But we in New Zealand have narrowed that to 10 years, which I would say is an absolute minimum.

There also needs to be run-off cover so that if a building consent authority goes out of business, the cover will run for the balance of the 10 years from the last building, without further premium payments. It is this third area that is the most important. Private building consent authorities that have defective work will quickly go into liquidation, leaving a whole lot of homeowners high and dry with regard to any remedy unless the authorities have run-off cover.

However, there are real problems with the Australian situation. Already professional indemnity cover is not currently available in New Zealand in an adequate fashion and has not been for some time.

The private building certifiers’ submission to the current consultation review on insurance states: “To be effective in reviewing insurance specifications, the Government needs to grasp the rationale behind the withdrawal of many insurers from the New Zealand market and appreciate the reasons why the insurance industry will not”—emphasised—“provide the type of cover the BIA are currently requiring of certifiers in New Zealand. In addition, the review needs to investigate fully the reasons why the BIA has resurrected this unattainable insurance specification of old, and why this specification is only available in other commercially competitive countries such as Australia and Canada, amongst others.”

The reason Australia has some very limited professional indemnity cover is very clear. In Australia there is professional indemnity cover only because joint and several liability has been abolished. In New Zealand joint and several liability remains, and the Government has made it clear it will not abolish that.

Again, in that submission to the insurance review, private building certifiers state: “Insurance policy underwriting for full, unrestrictive joint and several liability is not generally available to the New Zealand building industry or wider commercial and industry sectors.”

So it is not available. In Australia professional indemnity cover is limited in size, is limited to 6 years—not anything even near the 10 years that we have as a minimum—and no run-off cover is available. It is used only as a last resort cover. Until a company goes into liquidation, or the person is bankrupt or dead, it is not available. For New Zealand this means that all private building consent authorities will have certification expiring in January 2005. To be registered as a building consent authority a company will have to have professional indemnity cover with minimum terms and conditions. If the terms and conditions require the three cornerstones, the cover will not be available, and even if they do not, a company will not be able to get it with joint and several liability.

So no private building consent authorities in January 2005 will be able to be registered. Suddenly they will cease to be able to operate, and territorial authorities will have to pick up any new work. Currently, authorities have 25,000 projects among them, with over $4 billion of building work. Territorial authorities will suddenly find in January 2005 that private building certifiers are out of business. They will be left under-resourced or under-staffed. If they wait and see until January, even then they cannot be sure of the situation. In fact, they will not be able to take on staff now who will be needed at that time, because they do not know what situation they will face.

United Future proposed a better way: to accept that private building certifiers will not be able to get the professional indemnity cover that is a prerequisite to their operating as a public protecting regulatory authority, instead of having the false hope that this bill gives; and by increasing the scope of the transition period to phase out private building consent authorities in an orderly manner; and, over 3 years—which would be the transition time we would recommend—give territorial authorities the time to gain recognition themselves, and private building certifiers time to adjust to the new environment.

The Government, in fact, entirely agrees with United Future’s view on this. So why will it not do something about it? It does not want to be seen to be axing private building certifiers and scratching them from the race. Rather, it wants to set up hurdles that are impossible for them to jump over, so that they fall flat on their face. United Future will support the bill, but it will not support private building certifiers.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): This will be just a very brief call, because speakers have contributed constructively to the debate this afternoon. This bill is about meeting the needs of industry and consumers. So many people were so negatively affected by the leaky building syndrome that has given rise to this full investigation and review. I am very pleased that as a consequence of that investigation the bill will have a much stronger focus on the protection of consumers. After all, for most of us our home is the biggest asset we are ever likely to own in our lifetime. The bill will help to ensure that the concept of buildings being fit for the people who use them is a priority. I look forward to this bill passing through its various stages, and also look forward to the subsequent extra protections the public will have with regard to buildings, both commercial and privately owned.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): That was another fine contribution from the member for Whanganui. She is right, partly. Despite the fact that National will oppose the Building Bill, she is partly right in this area, because she said one’s home is the biggest asset most people will ever own. Apart from that, nothing in her contribution had any relevance to what we are debating today. The reality is that this bill came about as a result of the leaky homes inquiry—that is true. It is also true that the regulatory requirement that was in place prior to that inquiry clearly had some deficits, and that something needed to be done. National acknowledges that. But the Government has come up with a piece of fine, academic work—358 pages of it! That is what happens when we get the socialist academics—along with the lawyers Messrs Franks and Smith, I hasten to add—involved in trying to design something to take care of a very practical problem. We have ended up with this “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach. That is what we have here, and that is why National opposes the bill.

The National Party looked at all the submissions that came before the Government Administration Committee. There was a large number—150 submitters. We went through all the issues raised by submitters, and decided that the proposed changes in this bill would add a huge layer of cost to the building industry, and, by and large, would not achieve the outcome that is intended. I will give a couple of examples of that. One of the problems identified in the inquiry as leading to the leaky homes syndrome was the fact that the wrong materials or products were being used together with one other. Nothing in this bill will stop that from happening. Further, another thing identified by that process was that a large number of contractors and developers—particularly in the Auckland area—would not be caught by this process. So, we will add this huge cost—submitters said that as much as $6,300 could be added to the cost of an average home—to the cost of buildings, and the legislation will not address the problem.

Much has been made of the role that private certifiers may have played in the leaky homes problem. Private certifiers cannot be found to have been liable in any one of those cases. I challenge the Opposition member to give me an example of a case where a private certifier was found to be the core reason for the problem that occurred with regard to the leaky homes syndrome. We will not find an example—at least, National has not found one anywhere. At the end of the day, this heavy-handed legislation will crack down on a group of people that is doing nothing that could be identified as wrong—in fact, those people are providing a service. The Government’s way of getting rid of that group—this was correctly identified by the United Future speaker—is to make the regulatory requirement around it so tough that it cannot survive. Those people will not be able to continue.

It was also submitted to the committee that the average cost of building a medium-quality home in Auckland is around $2,300 per square metre. Currently, the average cost of building an equivalent home in Australia is about A$1,100 per square metre. That is under the current regime. What will happen when we add a further $6,300 to the cost of the average home? It was interesting to listen to the Green member Sue Kedgley’s contribution, in which she said it has been identified—and this is true; I agree with her—that poor housing, low insulation levels, and those kinds of things contribute to our health problems. There is absolutely no doubt about that being true. How will the addition of $6,300 worth of compliance costs to the cost of an average home help people in the low socio-economic group to get a better standard of house? How will it do that? It is absolutely true that insulation and proper building standards play a major role in the quality of our housing stock.

But would it not have been a much more sensible idea to have empowered the Building Industry Authority to have a self-policing role, and not to lay all that cost on the industry and on every house that is built?

I want to cover a number of other things, and one of them is the whole issue of treated timber, which is not addressed in this bill. Most old builders will tell us the notion of using untreated Pinus radiata in the framework of a house is about as nuts as we can get. Most of them will tell us that. Sue Kedgley said that I want to put a regime in place whereby all chemicals—and particular mention was made of the use of tanalised timber, where the treatment is arsenic-based—are banned in the preservation of timber. We cannot have it both ways. If we are to have houses that are sound, watertight, healthy, and do not fall down, then we have to start asking those questions. This bill does not address that issue. On the other hand, the Green Party also says we cannot use native timber in the construction of our houses, because its milling is not sustainable. Well, one can build a house in a sustainable, long-term reliably constructed manner from untreated native timbers, but we are not allowed to use those timbers because it is not sustainable to mill them. So there is the conundrum that the Greens face, and it is some of the conundrum that the committee faced during the process of considering this bill.

Further, the idea that we can put in place some kind of superior person who will go around and supervise the construction of houses, particularly in outlying rural areas, where there is a large number of semi-retired builders who will now find it very difficult to keep themselves up to speed with the regulation that is being applied in this bill, will mean that we will end up with a poorer, or a lower, standard of construction, rather than an improvement.

Janet Mackey: Oh, that’s stupid!

SHANE ARDERN: I see the member, who represents a large rural area, is saying that is not so. She should go out and look at who builds houses and does some of the work in the small towns in her electorate.

Opposition Member: She should take a call.

SHANE ARDERN: That is right. She will most likely have come across the kind of people whom I am talking about, and we need those people. There is a huge shortage of skilled builders in the industry. So there is a large number of people out there who are qualified and do quality work, but who will be excluded from doing it in future as a result of this bill. Now, where will the replacements for those people come from? Where are the people who will carry out the training for quality people, whom we need so desperately in the building industry? Where will the volunteers who do work to the local hall or school, and carry out those kinds of renovations, come from, once this legislation is passed?

This bill is 358 pages of socialist, bureaucratic overkill in terms of what will happen in rural New Zealand, and we oppose it.

JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast): In standing to support this bill, there are one or two issues that I would quite seriously like to canvass. I have discussed it with my colleague the Minister, and he assures me these matters will be resolved. One of the issues is that of steel-capped boots. In its wisdom, the Government Administration Committee has recommended that protective clothing and safety gear be provided by the employer, or by the builder who is doing the employing. Of course, all builders, being responsible employers, have no problem with that. They agree with it, and they make it their business to ensure that their workers are adequately equipped to go out on to a dangerous building site.

However, in saying that, there has been a decision by the bureaucrats that boots will be included in the definition of protective clothing and safety gear. That provision effectively means that every builder in the country, every time he or she employs somebody, will have to go to the quite expensive cost of purchasing that employee a new pair of boots. Now, anyone who has employed someone on a building site will know that one employs quite a few labourers and skilled people. One employs them one day, they turn up for work, one gives them a new pair of boots, and there is a very high chance that one will never see them or their boots again. So my contribution to the bill, and I am supporting the intent of this bill, is that I would appreciate it if the Minister could resolve that matter, either through the officials—because I believe it is an interpretative matter—or, if necessary, by amendment.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The Building Bill will, in time, prove to be the most stupid legislation the Labour Government has passed. I predict that within a very short time of the commencement of the new National Government, members will be back in this House tidying up this very messy, costly legislation.

Darren Hughes: Of course! This bill will be 20 years old by then.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I assure the member that the job will have to be done far earlier than that.

This is very cynical legislation that was rushed into the House in a desperate attempt to take the leaky homes issue off the front page of the New Zealand Herald and other newspapers up and down the country. When we analyse this legislation carefully, we find that it will do nothing to stop the further construction of leaky homes, and absolutely nothing to cure the problems of those poor, unfortunate people who own leaky homes.

One has only to look at the commentary that has been presented to Parliament by the Government Administration Committee. Every party represented on the committee, apart from the Labour Party, has presented a minority report on the legislation expressing some degree of concern about various aspects of it. The amazing contribution from members of New Zealand First was a 10-minute speech criticising every aspect of the Building Bill—quite rightly so, I might add—but those members then proceeding to vote for it.

So this legislation ultimately will be passed, because the Government and its mates United Future and New Zealand First support the legislation, without actually having analysed what effect it will have on the building industry.

Brent Catchpole: Tell us what you would do.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member now asks what it does. Well, Mr Catchpole was on the select committee so he should know what the legislation will do, but I will tell him. I am happy to tell him exactly what the legislation will do. To a small family home it will add a cost of $6,300. On average, it will add that sort of cost to construction. That is what it will do, and that, in my mind, is just stupidity.

A huge section of the legislation is devoted to a new occupational group called the licensed building practitioner. I have just completed a significant home renovation, and I used builders. But now there will not be many builders in this country; there will be licensed building practitioners. The interesting thing about my personal experience with the construction of my property was that we used a builder who has been in the industry for years and years, but who has never got himself qualified. That guy can no longer control my building project, because he will not be a licensed building practitioner, as he does not have the qualifications. Yet he has done a pretty good job—the house certainly does not leak, and I am just pleased I got in and got the job done—

Lindsay Tisch: Is it level?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is absolutely level. Lindsay Tisch wants to know whether the builder did a good job in that regard, and he did. I am just thrilled that I got in and got my job completed before the passing of this stupid legislation.

I spoke to members of my own caucus who were on the select committee, and I asked them to clarify for me the issue around the do-it-yourself industry. New Zealanders have a huge industry now—in retail, etc.—associated with people doing the odd renovation on their own home in a most cost-effective and satisfactory manner. There now appears to be doubt as to the continuation of the DIY industry, because many of the jobs that are tackled by the homeowner on Saturdays and Sundays will now have to be inspected by a licensed building practitioner. Those jobs have been done quite satisfactorily—

Brian Connell: What’s that going to cost?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Who knows what it will cost. The members of the select committee should have asked that question and should have been supplied with the information. A person who has a rotting window frame, and who has some capability with a hammer, a nail, and a saw, will not be able to go down to Carters, buy the timber required, replace the window frame, and re-glaze it him or herself. That person will not be allowed to do it, because the Labour Government says that he or she was the cause of the problem of the leaky homes syndrome. I say to Labour members that nothing could be further from the truth.

The reasons we have trouble with leaky homes are fourfold. In many cases, the design was inadequate. That will not be fixed by the Building Bill. In many cases, as referred to by my colleague Shane Ardern, untreated timber was used, which was a stupid notion brought on by the “greenies” of the world, who demanded the option of using untreated timber and then expressed surprise when the untreated timber rotted when it got wet. How dopey can the “greenies” be? The third reason for leaky homes was the huge number of products that simply were inadequate for the job they were destined to do. There were not enough procedures there. And, of course, the fourth reason, in some cases, was bad workmanship. Here we have 350 pages of costly legislation to tackle the fourth reason, which is the bad workmanship aspect of the leaky homes syndrome.

So I say that this is probably the most cynical legislation this Government has presented so far. It has been brought into the House as an instant response to the headlines around the leaky homes syndrome, which caused the Government huge embarrassment. At the end of the day, after sitting in the select committee for 9 months, the bill has come back before the House not hugely improved, at all. It puts huge costs and regulation on to the construction sector and will not provide the answers required for the leaky homes mess, whatsoever.

Brent Catchpole: How many submissions?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Three hundred and fifty.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 83

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 83

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As this bill is not drafted in parts, we begin with clause 1.

Clause 1 Title

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The title of any legislation should be designed to give people a fair indication of what the legislation is about. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) will not suggest to many people what this legislation is about, whatsoever. But as a member of the Primary Production Committee, I can tell members that the committee knows very well what the legislation is all about, because we have been working on the issue for years. The issue has been going on for years. The issue is, of course, the scampi fishery of New Zealand.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Oh, what?

Hon DAVID CARTER: That is right, the scampi fishery of New Zealand. Members of Parliament suddenly know why we are debating this today, because they know that this issue has a huge history and is hugely controversial. I say to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, that we should be honest with the people of New Zealand and call this bill the “Scampi Bill (No 1)”. Let us hope this bill tidies up scampi completely, so that we will not have any more legislation. We will not even need the “No 1”, because we will not have to have another bill for scampi, at all. If it is done properly, the scampi issue will be tidied up by Parliament in this legislation.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Is the member supporting the bill?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister will have to wait to find out whether the member is supporting the bill. I know he will be keen to know.

I say to the Minister that we should seriously think about naming this bill, correctly, the “Scampi Bill”, because all this legislation does is take the opportunity to finalise scampi entering into the quota management system, and to allocate finally the quota entitlements to the fishers who were involved in that fishery 12-odd years ago, which is how long this scandal and controversy have been going on for.

Shane Ardern: How long?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Twelve long years. It spans a number of different Governments—I accept that. I must say, right at the outset, that the Primary Production Committee, which conducted the scampi inquiry, acknowledged that the issue transversed a number of Governments, and it worked genuinely through the issues without trying to play party politics. I congratulate all the members of that select committee on coming up with a very detailed and progressive report that has tended to move the issue forward.

Before us today is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), which will finally—we hope—put the matter to rest so that fishers can get on with the job of catching fish and making money for themselves and for “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call to give us a reason why we should not correctly name the legislation the “Scampi Bill”, rather than the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). I think the “Scampi Bill” would give a far better message to people in the industry and to New Zealanders generally interested in the legislative process as to what the legislation is all about.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next member, I want to remind members that we have been dealing with clause 1 as a wrap-up clause at the end of the debate. The debate on this clause is limited; it is not a wrap-up debate.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just seek clarification on your last statement. Are you saying that this debate, at the moment, is a wide-ranging debate? Is it just on the title and commencement?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the debate is not being dealt with as a wide-ranging, wrap-up debate; it is being dealt with as a limited title debate only.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): Superficially, I am tempted to agree with the Hon David Carter’s suggestion that this bill be renamed the “Scampi Bill”, but I think that is a little too simplistic. Perhaps we should really look behind what the bill actually means. Perhaps it should be called the “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”.

Hon David Carter: The what?

IAN EWEN-STREET:”. The “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. The scampi industry has a history of mismanagement by the ministry. It has a history of overfishing by some of the major players in the industry. If one looks no further than areas 1 and 2, one will find that there is no mature fishery left in those areas. They have been overfished. Perhaps we could call this bill the “Maybe this isn’t very democratic but, hey, let’s not worry; it’s only a few scampi fishermen Bill”.

Janet Mackey: That’s a Green title.

IAN EWEN-STREET: It is a very appropriate title.

Hon David Carter: It’s a bit long.

IAN EWEN-STREET: Members may very well laugh at it, but people have identified this as being a situation where they have been unfairly treated. They have been to court on several occasions, and they have been found to be right. They have instituted two inquiries, and, again, they have been found to be right. But what is happening to them? The Government is just riding roughshod over justice and putting this bill into a permanent quota allocation for the sake of convenience. We members may well laugh, but this is the thin end of the wedge. It could be the scampi fishers today, but people can bet their bottom dollar that it will be them tomorrow.

I join David Carter in asking the Minister to take a call and say why this bill should not be called the “Scampi Bill”, because that is clearly what it is. The title, Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), is quite meaningless really, to the general public. I do take issue, though, with what Mr Carter said about putting the scampi issue to bed. I would like to think that this would be the end of it, but I rather feel that when the full truth of the matter comes out, his National Government—for I presume at some stage National will become the Government—will revisit this issue. Hopefully, it will put a fair allocation of scampi quota into place, because I think even the most radical, the most enthusiastic member of this Parliament who wants this bill to go through, would have to concede that the allocation is unfair. We would also have to look at court cases and say that it is not only unfair but also unreasonable, and it is unlawful. We are putting into law something that has been shown by the courts to be unreasonable, unfair, and unlawful, and we should not go there. I support David Carter in renaming this bill the “Scampi Bill”.

JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast): Having sat through the inquiry and on the Primary Production Committee, which reviewed this bill, I would like to say in supporting the bill that I do not give a toss what it is called. We can call it the “Chocolate Fish Bill”, if members like, as long as we get this stock into the quota management system so it can be managed sustainably.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I am not sure whether it was Shakespeare who once asked: “But what is in a name?”. I think when it comes to the scampi bill, quite a lot is in a name. A member of the public listening to this debate might tune in and say: “Oh, this is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)—what an innocuous title.” Anybody listening would think that the subject has to be the most boring ever, and switch off. In reality, as the Hon David Carter mentioned, this bill is about one of the biggest commercial—how can I rephrase that? I cannot recall a time when an allocation of any product, anywhere, has caused so much controversy. It has taken over a year of inquiry—indeed, there have been two inquiries—to actually come up with this final bill that we have in front of us, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4).

In fact, the bill should be named the “Scampi Bill”, as Mr Ian Ewen-Street and Mr David Carter have quite rightly observed, because everybody in this country who has any interest in the fishing industry knows this infamous No. 4 bill as the “Scampi Bill”. It is entirely appropriate to give it a name that describes it exactly. It is important that the title should reflect accurately what this bill is really about. The bill is about huge controversy. There has been enormous controversy. It is about allegations of incompetence. It is all about allegations of corruption. It is about ineptitude. It is about all of those things, yet nothing in the title actually or accurately reflects exactly what this bill contains.

I hope that the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, will take a call. I guess he is embarrassed about this whole business around the scampi issue, as indeed the whole of Parliament is. Certainly, the ministry must be embarrassed about it. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and to explain to us why this innocuous title, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), was used instead of a title that accurately reflects what this has been about. In fact, I would go further and call it the “Scampi Debacle Bill”, which might even more accurately reflect what it is about. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for the players in this industry, as indeed it has been for the members of the select committee in trying to come up with reasonable outcomes, which I hope and believe we have done.

I come back to my first question: what is in a name? I think there is an awful lot, and I would much prefer to call the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) the “Fisheries Debacle Bill”.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): As I wandered down to the Chamber to take a call on this legislation, I was bemused at the title of this bill. Along with a number of other speakers, I wondered what the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” tells us, and what issue the bill addressed. When I started to flick through the legislation it became very clear, as other speakers have pointed out, that this is really the “Scampi Bill”. That is what it is about, amongst other things. So I propose, along with the Hon David Carter, that the appropriate title for the bill is the “Scampi Bill”.

However, I have had the opportunity to reflect on a couple of alternative titles. As I flicked through some of the other contents of the bill, I thought that the “Change of Boundaries Bill”, or the “Change of Line Bill”, may also be appropriate titles. I have only just thought of that. I am in an arbitrary mood, and it occurred to me that changing the boundaries, as the Minister has done, has been quite arbitrary, as well. So those titles may be appropriate. Another title that comes to mind is the “Quota Management Bill”. When one picks up this bill and looks through it, one finds, in essence, that that is what it is about. Essentially we are saying—and National agrees with this component of the bill—that we want to see the scampi fishery come into the quota management system. So that title would be reasonable. However, I could be a little more controversial and call it the “Scam Bill” because, first, it rhymes with scampi, and, second, it also makes me think of some of the things that have foreshadowed the creation of this legislation. We have had two inquiries, and we are now getting to a point where we will have legislation that is still surrounded in controversy.

Another possible title that comes to mind is the “Mismanagement Bill”, a title that resonates with me somewhat.

Hon David Carter: What about the “Scampi Scandal Bill”?

BRIAN CONNELL: That is another title that comes to mind. Both those titles resonate with me a bit, because when I look through the bill I see the contribution that the Ministry of Fisheries has made to its drafting. Even the best friends of the Ministry of Fisheries cannot really say it did a good job. The ministry has been found wanting by a number of different parties, and I do not mean just political parties. The Primary Production Committee went through the legislation and was very critical of the ministry, and the State Services Commission inquiry also pointed the stick at the ministry, as well. The “Mismanagement by the Ministry of Fisheries Bill” could be a reasonable title. It probably does not serve the fishery industry very well. Maybe that is one suggested title that we will not pursue, when I think about it. However, we cannot have a debate around this legislation without at least saying to the ministry that it will have to lift its game. It was a pretty hard critique of the ministry’s performance when an independent body said that the ministry was unprofessional, ad hoc, and inconsistent. Those are the sort of things that we need to take into consideration.

The contribution of the Labour member Janet Mackey was—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to come back to the title.

BRIAN CONNELL: I was about to. I am sure that Janet Mackey’s suggested title of the “Chocolate Fish Bill” was not a particularly serious suggestion, but I did think that it was of some interest. It talked about fishing a little more than the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” does. It occurs to me to ask why the bill is titled the “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)”. What went before it?

Shane Ardern: Three before it.

BRIAN CONNELL: I assume that three bills went before it, but why should we call it that? Who cares?

Hon David Carter: No, that’s wrong. No. 3 hasn’t gone before it. No. 3 is still before the select committee.

BRIAN CONNELL: Maybe the Minister can take a call to explain why this is the No. 4 bill, when there has not been a No. 3. I am struggling with that, and I see that the Minister is also struggling with it, because he has neither rhyme nor reason for the title. He is struggling to get past No. 1, probably. However, that is a dilemma that we find ourselves in at the moment, as well.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise to speak on the title debate, and to support my colleague David Carter in putting forward the proposal to change the name of the bill to the “Scampi Bill”. Clearly, Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) tells no one, except those seared by the pain of the scampi inquiry, what the bill is about. But before I do that, I would like to address Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I know that Ministry of Fisheries’ officials are very keen to put every fish species they can find into the quota management system. They want to put in highly migratory species, tuna, mussel spat—anything that moves. I bet that a working-party will be produced to look at Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I put it to the officials that they should slow down and hold their horses, as they will not get any support on this side of the House for that suggestion.

I refer to Brian Connell’s question about this legislation being the No. 4 bill, and what in the world were the No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 bills. I shall address those titles briefly. The No. 1 bill was passed well before I was a member of Parliament, taking an interest in fisheries, but I can tell members that the No. 2 bill was about the conservation levies paid indirectly to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Department of Conservation, which were overcharged during a 4 or 5-year period. The Labour Government had to give back $16 million or $17 million to the fishing industry, because of that overcharging, and that bill was sorted out before the committee.

The No. 3 bill relates to highly migratory species and tuna going into the quota management system, which everyone is up in arms about, including the member Ian Ewen-Street. He is concerned about that, too. He is not just up in arms because of line dancing; he is up in arms genuinely, because of highly migratory species going into the quota management system. The No. 3 bill is also about mussel spat going into the quota management system, and of course about a whole lot of species going in, without catch history being recognised through the allocation of quota.

However, the No, 4 bill is clearly about scampi. I support David Carter’s change of the bill’s name to “Scampi Bill”. If he wanted to be more technical he could call it the “Metanephrops Challengeri Scampi Bill”, the reason being that that is the Latin name for scampi. Interestingly, the French call it langoustine, Italy also calls it scampi, but Spain calls it cigala. They smoke scampi in Spain. They call it cigala. I understand that the Greens also smoke scampi, although that has not been confirmed. So that is the “Scampi Bill”.

This bill is strictly about scampi. Clearly, the title should include scampi in its name. Members of the public constantly come to me when they discover that I am the National Party spokesperson on fisheries, and they say two things. Firstly, they ask: “What’s the story about scampi, because that’s all we hear about when it comes to fisheries, and I think it’s hurting the industry.” The second thing they say is: “My, you’re a jolly good spokesperson. Are you the one the officials go to for advice?”. That is what they say to me.

I put it to the Committee that there is tremendous interest in what David Carter and I call the “scampi” legislation. Unfortunately, the whole seafood and commercial fishing industry has been tarnished because of what has happened in the fishing industry over the years, and that is hugely disappointing. We as a National Party team are keen to put all those problems behind us and resolve them, through the passing of this legislation.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 1 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(2) In this Act, the Fisheries Act 1996 is called “the principal Act”.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Clause 1 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1A Commencement

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): This is an aspect of the legislation that I support. The bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I think most members have acknowledged that it is critical that scampi be brought into the quota management system as quickly as possible. This issue has gone on for too long. I hope the Minister will assist the Committee by taking a call immediately to advise us when he expects the legislation to receive the royal assent. That is an important question that we need to know the answer to.

In answer to a question raised in the House during question time today, the Minister clearly implied that the Primary Production Committee had asked for information that the ministry had supplied to it under pressure. I accept that there was some of that, but what the Minister failed to tell the House was that the pressure imposed on the select committee was from the Minister demanding that the legislation be returned very, very quickly to the House. The committee undertook that work on the understanding that the legislation would progress through the House quickly, so that it would receive the royal assent, and so the process of allocating quota and the appeal process could then take place. We know now that that did not happen. For some reason, which I have not been able to fathom, the legislation was not progressed as we were told it would be. We are now progressing it with some haste and agreeing that it should be enacted on the day after it receives the royal assent, but we ask the Minister to tell us when he expects that it will receive the royal assent.

There is a whole raft of processes that occur once the legislation is passed. The quota is allocated, the 20 working days of the allocation process are then notified, and those fishers who disagree with the allocations as designated by the ministry have the opportunity to have their appeals heard by the Catch History Review Committee. The point I make is that the timing, between now and 1 October, is making the process almost impossible to complete.

I see that the Minister is shaking his head, and that is good. Let the Minister take the next call—and save us asking question after question all around the same issue—and tell us when we can expect the royal assent. Then we can clearly understand the process that will occur from now on, and make sure that anybody allocated quota who then disagrees with the allocation has a fair and reasonable opportunity for his or her concerns to be heard before the final quota allocation is manifested on 1 October. If the Minister will take a call to explain that to the Committee, then at this stage I will yield my turn and accept that—reserving, of course, the right to come back if I am not happy with the answer that is so given.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I am pleased to rise in response to the questions asked by Mr Carter. I can assure him that the timing of the royal assent after the third reading of this bill still enables us to meet the 1 October introduction date. Depending on how long the Committee busies itself with this stage, I am informed by Dr Cullen that the bill is scheduled for the third reading this week. That will enable the royal assent to be given later this week or early next week. In terms of the Catch History Review Committee process, that is not compromised because it can happen after 1 October, so there is no issue. Once the lodgment has happened, the hearings can take place after the introduction date without any difficulty.

I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, and Mr Carter in particular, for their cooperation. A great deal of work has had to be done, and it has been good to address an issue that has long needed tidying up, as one would acknowledge. I am sorry that this legislation was not considered in the last sitting of Parliament; that was because of events beyond my control, but I am pleased to have it on the floor of the House now for immediate progress.

I also want to thank members for the very fulsome level of support—to have 109 votes to 9 in the first debate was pretty impressive. Although anyone listening to the debate would have found it hard to fathom whether National and ACT members did, in fact, support the bill, clearly we are progressing it, because, along with other recommendations, the select committee requested we do just that. We also took to heart the recommendations of the select committee in terms of ex gratia payments to and negotiations with some adversely affected parties.

I guess this debate will proceed apace because the fact that most of these issues took place in the 1990s, when National was in Government, is not lost on anyone. I am delighted that we are finally making such good progress on this matter.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I oppose the imposition of 1 October as the commencement date. This fishery has been fished in a competitive way for about 12 to 14 years. Although simply for ecological reasons I am the last person to say that fishing should continue in a competitive way, I feel that the Committee is being pushed into a corner by the Government to say it has to get this issue out of the way. There are no real reasons at all why this measure could not wait for another year. Yes, we need to put controls on the fishery; there are no two ways about that. We have to put catch limits on scampi, but we do not have to rush like this into making an allocation that we know, and everybody in this Committee knows, is grossly unfair. It has been shown by the courts to be illegal and unreasonable. Two inquiries have both shown there to be serial incompetence in the Ministry of Fisheries, yet members of this Committee are continuing to follow the advice of the same people in the ministry who have shown that incompetence. Why on earth do we need to push this measure through right now? It is crazy.

Jill Pettis: There’s no time like the present.

IAN EWEN-STREET: A stitch in time saves nine as well, but if we make a mistake in a hurry then we have a long time to regret it.

I sincerely hope that when National Party members finally realise the mistake they are making in supporting this bill they will revisit this matter when eventually, I presume at some stage in the future, they become the Government. This is really bad legislation. There is absolutely no reason for this measure to be pushed through in a hurry, except that the Government wants to get it out of the way. We have to ask why the Government wants to get it out of the way. It is not because it is fair to the fisher people. There is a political reason here that I can only speculate upon, and I am not prepared to do that speculation publicly. However, I can see some nods from Opposition members. They agree that there is a political motive behind this bill that really needs to see the light of day. I suspect that motivation will see the light of day sometime in the next year, and maybe if we put off the commencement date until 2005 then those revelations would become public, and we would say it was lucky that we did not put scampi into the quota management system as of 2004.

I strongly oppose the idea that this bill should be put into place in such a hurry. A lot is still to be learnt about scampi, and we need to get into that over the next year.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I would like to pick up on the comment of the Minister, who, I am very pleased to say, took a call in answer to Mr Carter’s question. He, of course, thanked the Primary Production Committee and the House for what I think he took as a vote of confidence. I tell the Minister that he should take absolutely no comfort at all from the fact that the vote in the Chamber was overwhelming, with just the Green Party opposing the progress of the bill. Certainly, the members from the ACT party, and, I assume from National, are telling this Government that the overriding factor is the sustainability of the scampi fishery. If it was not for that particular facet I am sure that my party would be voting against the early passage of this bill, because a huge number of issues still surround the scampi fishery. Legal proceedings are still swirling around this Government, around the Ministry of Fisheries, and around the fishers involved in the industry—and so they should. There has been—and I continue to repeat this—a huge amount of unfairness and inappropriate behaviour by the ministry on this particular issue.

I have a question that maybe the Minister or some members of this Committee may be able to help me with. It is this: when the royal assent is given and this bill becomes law, what impact will that have on the ability of the scampi litigants, if that is the right word, to actually forward their cases? It seems to me that the ministry may take the attitude, in dealing with fishers on this issue, that once the legislation becomes an Act it is no longer a matter for debate, and the ministry could well take a more intransigent attitude than it is perhaps taking at the moment towards those with a genuine grievance. So, as I said earlier, I think this bill is a matter that the Government can take no comfort from, in terms of the extent of the vote in favour of it.

Is 1 October the appropriate commencement date? Well, any date, I guess, could be described as appropriate, but as far as the ACT party is concerned, the sooner the quota management system comes into being for all fish and fish stocks that are under threat, the better it will be. Quite clearly that is the way to progress the industry. The world recognises that New Zealand is leading the charge on that particular issue. The sustainability of any feral fishery is under threat throughout the world, and the quota management system is certainly the way to further that particular issue.

It is not easy, quite frankly, for me to stand here and vote with the Government on this issue. But we do so not out of seeking to support the Government, but out of seeking to support the sustainability of the fishery.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I and the National Party are certainly not voting to support this Government. The reason we are voting for this particular clause is that we are concerned for the sustainability of the scampi fishery. My understanding is that at the moment, because scampi is not in the quota management system, fishers have a certain amount of catch that they can fish for in New Zealand waters. The difficulty is that they are racing against each other to get that catch on board. Consequently, they are bringing up a lot of juvenile fish. They are competing against each other out on the water—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the member speaking to the commencement?

PHIL HEATLEY: Absolutely. There is a lot of tension out on the water because fishers are competing against each other, and there is a concern for the fishery. That is why the National Party believes that scampi should come into the quota management system on 1 October this year. Hence the requirement of the commencement date whereby: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

I was intrigued by the Green member—

Janet Mackey: Why?

PHIL HEATLEY: I tell Janet Mackey I was intrigued by the Green member Ian Ewen-Street, who left the Primary Production Committee because of by-catch. He suggested that it would be a better idea to have scampi come into the quota management system in 2005, and therefore to pass this legislation at a later date, a year from now, I assume. Yet his minority view is there in the select committee report on the bill. Do members know what he really says about scampi coming into the quota management system next year—in 2005—thereby putting the commencement date a year out? He states this: “The Green Party opposes this legislation. The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to scampi fishing …”. In other words, the member does not want scampi fishing to occur next year, at all! So his proposal to this Committee that we put it off for 1 year is simply a stalking horse to put off commercial fishing in New Zealand forever. In other words, the only New Zealander who can collect by-catch in the scampi fishery is Ian Ewen-Street at the select committee. The National Party exposes that to members.

We do support the commencement date. The National Party certainly does want scampi to come into the quota management system as soon as possible. I recall saying to the Minister last week during the second reading debate that, in terms of this particular issue—the issue of when scampi should come into the quota management system, when the bill should be passed, and what the commencement date should be—that as long as we resolved the boundary issues, National would support this bill. I am not going to resile from that, at all. We support this commencement date—that this part and schedule 2 come into force on the day on which this Act receives the royal assent. I know that David Carter has been a strong supporter of scampi coming into the quota management system as soon as possible, because of the sustainability issues. Janet Mackey has also been a supporter of that. I know that that has been the argument that has twisted Gerrard Eckhoff’s arm, because he has had a principled approach to this matter. Certainly Doug Woolerton and other members on the select committee have thought the same as that. We are concerned for the scampi fishery and the scampi fishers. We are not concerned, as Mr Ewen-Street seems to be, to hurt the fishing industry further, or to right some perceived wrong and at the same time create another wrong—to right one injustice by causing another injustice. Mr Ewen Street ought to consider that point. We support this part.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I will take a short call on the commencement date of this legislation. I say “well done” to David Carter. He set a cunning trap for the Minister, got him on his feet, and flushed out the real agenda, which is that the Minister wants this legislation in force by 1 October. I ask the Minister what the urgency is now. Good on David Carter, because we got the true agenda out.

The Minister is covering up for an inefficient ministry. This House was in urgency 4 weeks ago, and this legislation was not taken up under that urgency motion. The reason it was not taken up was that the Minister could not get all his ducks in a row because of his incompetent ministry. Now we are being put in the position where we are being rushed.

I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that I have some sympathy with part of his argument. It is the argument that some of those fishers that do not like their quota will now be forced into a position whereby they will not have enough time to go through an appeal process. That will put them at a very significant disadvantage, and will create the suspicion that the whole process is not sufficiently rigorous.

I believe that rushing this legislation through now with undue haste is simply not fair and will damage the reputation of the fishery even further. Mr Benson-Pope can look down as much as he likes, but he knows that this legislation should not be rushed through with this type of undue haste.

Hon David Benson-Pope: The select committee asked us to.

BRIAN CONNELL: I have just listened to one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who said he did not agree with that, and now the Minister is saying the select committee asked him to. He is hiding the incompetence of his own ministry and is now blaming members of the select committee. That is a cheap shot. Why does he not just get his own backyard in order and stop penalising the people who make their livelihood out of this fishing industry?

I agree that we need to manage the scampi fishery in a sustainable way. We do agree with that component of the bill, but the Minister should have come clean in the first place. Thankfully, David Carter has exposed him.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1A be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Clause 1A agreed to.

Clause 65 Commencement of Part

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just remind members that, as the Minister’s amendment clearly signals, the Government intends to vote against clause 65. The debate is just on the commencement, so members cannot speak about anything else. The Government has signalled that it wants to vote against the clause, so I suggest that members may prefer to move on to the clauses they can debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister’s amendment proposes to remove clause 65, so I assume, on that basis, we can talk about the rationale for it being in the legislation at the select committee stage, and the reasons it is now being removed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is correct.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): My point is the very fact that clause 65 is in the bill in the first place. It is symptomatic of the point I made earlier that the Primary Production Committee was given this legislation with an indecent amount of time to do the work. With the assistance of the ministry officials, we presented it back to the House on time, as instructed by the Minister, but—surprise, surprise—when he finally gets to present it to the Committee of the whole House we find he wants to take out a clause that we in the select committee had not been told was unnecessary or contradictory.

Brian Connell: Incompetence.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Brian Connell suggests it is incompetence. The Minister should take a call and explain the rationale, because at this stage it appears to me that there has been absolute incompetence on the part of the Minister. The legislation has gone right through the select committee process, and has sat on the Order Paper for weeks, because the Minister forgot to include it in the urgency motion when the House took urgency in the last sitting block. Now, here we are, with a matter of days to pass it so that it can receive the royal assent as quickly as possible in order to meet the 1 October deadline, and we find that clause 65, when we re-read it, appears to contradict clause 1A, “Commencement”, which we have just debated. Because it appears to contradict that clause, the Minister has an instant answer, which is that we will just take it out altogether. How sloppy is that?

This is legislation that has been presented to the House. It is not a big bill. I know that the member is a new Minister, but he should have been able to get this right. He should have been able to get an 11-page bill together. He has known about this scampi issue for a long time. Did he not watch the Assignment programme in October 2002? He has had months and months to get the legislation right. He gave it to the Primary Production Committee, hurrying the committee along so that it could not do its job, then we get the bill back into the House, and, lo and behold, there is a mistake in it.

So he has proposed an amendment—I had trouble finding it, I must admit, but it has finally been pointed out to me—that states: “Clause 65 To omit this clause.” It is time for an explanation. The Minister should stand straightaway, accept his responsibilities as the Minister of Fisheries, and explain this. Then we can move on, because there are other important parts to discuss. We are not even at the gutsy part yet. We have not even reached the part where all the controversy is. Harry Duynhoven is rushing to get there. He wants to take a call.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Wasn’t this about having two commencement clauses?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Harry Duynhoven is right. We have two commencement clauses. I reckon that member would have made a wonderful Minister of Fisheries.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Why are you waffling on?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Because I want to know why the legislation was not right in the first place.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Oh boy, as if this is the biggest mistake ever made! Let’s get on with it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is not the biggest mistake; it is just another one. It is symptomatic of the problem that this particular species has had since the late 1980s.

John Carter: Harry Duynhoven should have been the Minister.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I reckon Mr Duynhoven should be the Minister. Here we are asking questions, and David Benson-Pope is just sitting there dumbstruck. He is not sure how to answer them.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I’ll take a call.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I reckon that is the best offer we have had all day. I am happy to yield to the Minister so that he can explain why clause 65 is being omitted. Again, I take the opportunity to say that if the answer is not satisfactory, I am sure members on this side of the Chamber will ask a lot more questions.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I am delighted to help the member, who is clearly having a senior moment or two. The need to remove clause 65 has arisen because of the wording of the split-out motion adopted by the Primary Production Committee, which he seems to have forgotten he chairs. It was the inclusion of the new clause 1A in the select committee’s motion that led to the duplication that this removal corrects.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I want to speak on clause 65 because it worries me that when legislation comes back to the House that has been through the select committee process, taken a huge amount of time, attracted a huge amount of public interest, been quite controversial—there have been all sorts of television programmes and documentaries about it and all sorts of newspaper publicity—and had a huge number of submissions—

Hon David Carter: There’s been a lawsuit.

JOHN CARTER: There has been a suggestion of lawsuits, I understand. On top of all of that, I get really worried when the Minister of Fisheries comes to this Committee and tells us that there is a bit in the bill we do not need or want. I have to ask how we got into that dilemma. Why had his advisers not pointed it out to him? I am the first to acknowledge that this Minister does not know everything. He is a relatively new Minister. Prior to his getting this portfolio he was a Government whip. As a whip, fish is not something that one deals with a lot.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Usually comes with chips.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, fish and chips on a late night is about as close as one gets. I accept that the Minister has a big learning curve. He actually needs to take advice from his officials.

Shane Ardern: That’s what he did.

JOHN CARTER: That is the very point, and that is the important point about this issue. I have noted, on the way through, the issues of concern that have been expressed in the public domain by the media and by the committee members—their worries about the advice they have been getting. Indeed, part of the inquiry around this issue was whether the advice that the committee was getting was good advice. When the bill was reported back, our caucus was told that things seemed to be starting to come right, that they were starting to get there. Then I come down to the Chamber and, lo and behold, I find that the third clause in the bill, clause 65, is a mistake. Indeed, the advice I am getting now is that we have to vote the clause down.

Hon David Carter: Leave it in.

JOHN CARTER: I do not think we will leave it in, because this National Party always tries to make things right. We will support voting it down. But this issue is very serious. The people of this country have a right to expect this Parliament to put through legislation that is accurate. When we end up with legislation that has two commencement dates—a new one in clause 1A, which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, and the one in the very next clause, clause 65, which states: “on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”—what are the public to think? They know there has been huge controversy around this bill. They have been told time and time again that there are a whole lot of issues that the officials are not sure about. Indeed, later on we will be debating the fact that suddenly there are some boundary changes, I understand. Again, we will expect quite a lot of advice from the Minister and from the officials—or I assume we will. I certainly want that advice. Again, it makes one wonder what sort of advice we will be getting. We in Parliament have to make decisions based on that advice, because not every one of us is totally au fait with the fishing industry, not every one of us knows about scampi, not every one of us knows about the Chatham Rise and the fishing that happens out there. How am I, a member of Parliament from Northland who is sitting here listening to this debate, to believe—

Lindsay Tisch: Do you enjoy fishing?

JOHN CARTER: I do enjoy fishing in the Bay of Islands. It is the best fishing place. But how am I to be absolutely certain that the advice we are getting is correct?

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I ask this question of the Committee: why should we be surprised that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) has two commencement dates? It has been a comedy. Well, it has not really been a comedy; it has been a chapter of errors right through. Here we are in August 2004, in the Committee of the whole House, at 5.45 p.m., still picking up on the errors of this Minister and the ministry. I ask again: why should we be surprised? I make this observation: if Gilbert and Sullivan were alive today and sitting in the gallery, they would have the makings of a brilliant comic opera. We are still playing it out on the floor of this Chamber in 2004, a year or so after the bill was introduced, and we have two commencement dates.

I ask a further question: which date is the right commencement date? Clause 1A states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, and clause 65 states: “This Part and Schedule 2 come into force on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” So, potentially, we have the Act coming into force 1 day early or 1 day late. I would like to ask the Minister how he determined which of the two clauses—clause 1A or clause 65—to omit.

Shane Ardern: Or the Minister.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: That is a good point. Did he toss a coin? Did he draw a short straw? How did he determine which clause was the appropriate one to omit? Why is there a discrepancy? Why does one clause have the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”, and the other “on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent”? Some might suggest that this is a rather trifling matter, but it indicates to me very clearly that the required amount of thought has not gone into even the most simple of tasks of getting the day right. It is perfectly appropriate to stand in this Chamber and ask the ministry what day it is. Does the ministry know what day it is? Does the Minister know that this is—

Ian Ewen-Street: What day is it?

GERRARD ECKHOFF: It is Tuesday. I had to announce that to the “Minister of Lord High Everything Else” over there, the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage. I guess she had a hand in this bill, too. One would almost have to think so. However, as I said earlier, this really is a serious matter. It has caused huge angst. Here we have just a symptom of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of a new Minister. Everybody is giving him a little leeway because of the fact that he is a new Minister, but he has yet to put his seal of approval, his stamp, on the ministry.

It is with some bemusement that we stand here just prior to the dinner break debating the question of whether the bill should have two commencement dates. Of course there should be only one. But the question for the Minister is: which is the right one? I yield the floor to the Minister and expect a reply to my good question.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): Members may recall the television programme Yes, Minister. In Britain that programme was a comedy. In Australia it was a tragedy. But in New Zealand, I am afraid, it was a documentary. One of the reasons I oppose the commencement date being this year is that there are so many errors that have been carried out over so long a period that I am certain the ministry has not got it right. I will give another example. What day is the commencement date? That is a very good question. Why do we have two commencement dates in the bill? It is pretty simple stuff.

Another example of “What day is it?” was on 17 June, when the ministry officials, in response to a written request from the Primary Production Committee on how the allocations would change with boundary changes to the quota management areas, came back with a form that was largely blank. We refused to accept it. Within an hour they came back, and said: “Oh yes, we remember now. We do have some figures there.” Then, another couple of hours later, they came back and said: “Oh, sorry—oops, those figures are wrong. These are the new figures.” Which figures do we actually believe? Is it the last ones? If it is the last figures, then they do not add up. I tell the Minister to take my word for it. He should look at them. What day is the commencement day? Is it the day of the royal assent or the day after the royal assent?

I think it is appropriate for the Minister to get up and take a call. I am really concerned about the advice he is getting, and the fact that he is taking it at face value.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): My understanding is that clause 65 was from the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), which included the highly migratory species, the mussel spat, and, at that time, scampi—hence, clause 65 in a bill with only seven or eight clauses. When scampi was part of that greater bill, clause 65 contained the commencement date for when the part that dealt with scampi would come into force, which was “on the day on which the Act receives the Royal assent”. We split the bill, and this present bill deals specifically, and only, with scampi. Hence, there is a new commencement clause—clause 1A, which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

In other words, the first clause, clause 1A, is correct for the purposes of this bill. Clause 65 is the old commencement clause in the part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that dealt with scampi. That is my understanding of the Minister’s explanation. Could the Minister confirm that is the case. If it is, I assume that the National Party will vote against clause 65, just as the Government has proposed. Could the Minister confirm that is the case.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I explained before, the Minister’s amendment signals the Government’s intention to vote against this clause being agreed to.

Clause 65 not agreed to.

Clause 66 Interpretation

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Clause 66, the interpretation clause, is an interesting little clause that was slipped in at the last minute when the bill was tabled in the House for the first reading. I will read it out for members who may have forgotten their glasses: “Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after the definition of scallop spat, the following definition: “scampi” means any fish of the species Metanephrops challengeri”. That is Latin, and only those like myself who know Latin will recognise it. I will interpret it for members. It means “scampi”.

This is an important clause, because if one mentions scampi to the average punter walking up Queen Street—

Shane Ardern: Or Lambton Quay.

PHIL HEATLEY: —or Lambton Quay for that matter—all that he or she will think about is corruption and mismanagement. People will think of commercial fishing in bad terms, sadly, and of all sorts of issues, including free lunches. But scampi is a commercially fished species, caught mainly off the east coast of New Zealand, so it is clearly important to put the definition of scampi in this bill, given that the fishery is coming into the quota management system.

I have a picture of a scampi here should members like to come over and chat to me. I know that Judith Tizard wants any excuse to sidle up to me and chat. [Interruption] She has one. She can come over to this side of the Chamber to see a scampi picture that I have here. Interestingly enough, a scampi is not a prawn; it is a lobster, and it looks more like a lobster. When people ask me what a scampi is, I generally say that it is a fish species that is halfway between a prawn and a rock lobster. It roughly is, in size. It is about a foot long and is part of the lobster family, strictly speaking. It has the Latin name Metanephrops challengeri. I was quite intrigued by the last part of the name, “challengeri”. I thought it might indicate where scampi was originally found, which is in the Challenger Area fishery—area 7, as members will know. Apparently, it is not particularly prevalent there, but, interestingly, that is part of its scientific name.

National will be supporting the Minister on this clause, simply because it is important to put a definition of scampi into the bill—certainly into a bill that is about that specific fishery. It is intriguing to me that the Minister has seen fit to put the definition, “scampi”, after the definition, “scallop spat”, given that, alphabetically, “scampi” comes after the term “scallop spat”. That will help members, his Labour Party colleagues, librarians, and others to find it quickly. We support that definition. I mentioned before in Italy it is also called scampi. In Spain it is called cigala, and in Germany it is called the kaisergranat. Here in New Zealand we call it scampi.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I feel compelled, after listening to that member, to take a call to say that if National became the Government, he could be the Minister of Fisheries. I would imagine that anybody from the fishing industry who has just heard that speech would now be walking on water, quickly in the other direction. Because, for somebody who spent so many weeks on the Primary Production Committee, that member’s knowledge has some huge gaps in it. It is like a fishing net with none of the knots tied together. I suggest that he now reads the bill again, and all the submissions that were received on this very, very important legislation—and he should reconsider before making a speech after the dinner break.

This is a bill that has significant importance to the fishing industry and a huge amount of debate has preceded it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to stick to the clause.

JILL PETTIS: Yes. I am surprised at the level of that member’s contribution.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I was not on the Primary Production Committee, but I do like fish and I do like scampi. It is interesting to see the different pictures of scampi that that my colleague Phil Heatley has with him. There are some very good ones, and they clearly identify what we are talking about here. As he said, they have different names in different countries. There is another name here that I cannot pronounce because it is in Japanese.

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

LINDSAY TISCH: We are debating clause 66, “Interpretation”, and over the dinner break I did some research and made a remarkable discovery about the word “scampi” in my trusty Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition. The dictionary states that it is the foremost authority on current English, so I thought there would be no better place to find out about scampi. I looked up “scampi”, on page 1231, and I found that “scamp” has a number of derivatives. As mentioned earlier, there is a Latin name for scampi, and, going back to the days when I learnt Latin, many years ago—[Interruption] I learnt “amo amas amat amamus amatis amant moneo mones monet monemus monetis monent”. I found in the dictionary that a “scamp” is a rascal or a rogue. Further on, it states that “scamper” is to run or skip impulsively or playfully. Then we come to “scampi”. As we go from “scamp”, to “scamper”, to “scampi”—those are the Latin derivatives—we find that a scampi is a Norway lobster.

Hon Members: What?

LINDSAY TISCH: It is a Norway lobster. There is no better reference than this dictionary. A scampi is a Norway lobster.

The work I have here, the Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species, which I quoted from earlier—Phil Heatley was the instigator of this—has in it some very glossy pictures showing what scampi look like. I like fish—although I cannot tell the difference between a scampi and a prawn—so long as they taste nice. That is indicative, is it not? I am not interested in what the cover of a book looks like; it is whatever is inside it that is the main thing. And so it is when I look at scampi and prawns. I note that other names for scampi are mentioned in the book. I did not have time to catch up on my Japanese during the dinner break, but in Italy and the UK they are also known as scampi. I think it is significant that the explanatory note states that scampi has an average size of 25 to 30 centimetres overall, that from the end of the tail to the tip of the rostrum—I do not know what that means—it is about 16 to 21 centimetres, that the abdomen is about 3 centimetres in diameter, and that large scampi weigh over 100 grams. In the interpretation—

Hon Dover Samuels: Has the member ever eaten scampi?

LINDSAY TISCH: I have eaten lobster. In Norway it is called lobster. The book states that scampi is a lobster, not a prawn. So that is clear, and it corresponds with Norway lobster or Dublin Bay—I thought that was a wine—prawn.

The book describes scampi as being whitish or pinkish, with darker orange strips at the joints, that the rostrum is long and upward curved with a strong spine, and that it has large eyes. I am sure that clearly identifies it. It states that scampi are widely dispersed around New Zealand, that experimental fishing has been conducted from the Bay of Plenty northwards, using specialised deepwater trawlers, and that the largest prawn-like species in New Zealand waters are likely to be the main species of any possible future fishery for prawns. This is a very good book. It refers to other fish, but I will not go into that because it is not part of the debate.

It is interesting to note that the Concise Oxford Dictionary does not refer to those other areas. It states that scampi are from Norway. So what I found out over the dinner break was interesting. As I said earlier, I was not on the Primary Production Committee. Gathering this information has been a steep learning curve for me. I have certainly learnt a lot by going through the Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species, and also by going back to the dictionary.

With those few thoughts, I will finish. Suffice it to say, I appreciate what scampi are, compared with prawns. All the different interpretations and names here are significant, but I am aware now of what the issue is. When we discuss the other clauses, and especially the schedules, we will talk about those who will actually fish the zones. I think that will highlight the issues we face, and the reasons National is supporting the bill.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I normally agree with your rulings, Mr Chairman, but on this occasion I am not so sure. I was not going to take a call on clause 66, “Interpretation”, but having listened to the very learned contribution of my colleague Lindsay Tisch, I felt I would rise to state that, without any question at all, I support this interpretation clause.

Having listened to Lindsay Tisch’s superb dissertation on scampi, its various descriptions, and its definitions in his well-worn Concise Oxford Dictionary, I think it is absolutely vital that we have a clear, concise definition. I was struck by Lindsay Tisch’s explanation that at some stage scampi is called Norwegian lobster. That raises a concern that I think has not been addressed in the debate so far. We have been talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), and we know that before the Primary Production Committee was a Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill was about Māori obtaining 20 percent of the quota of tuna caught anywhere around the world, it seems. I wonder, then, whether the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, needs to clarify for us whether there is any claim by Māori on scampi caught in Norway.

Brian Connell: Was that in their quota management system?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to my learned colleague Mr Connell that I am not sure whether the Norwegians have a quota management system. Maybe the Minister could answer that for us, as well. I do not think it matters whether they have a quota management system, because the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries has decided that we will impose our quota system on fish caught just about anywhere around the world.

Shane Ardern: Chocolate fish.

Hon DAVID CARTER: There was a suggestion of chocolate fish, but I think the Labour Party was just showing a zealous enthusiasm when it was thinking of putting even chocolate fish into the quota management system. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to allay our fears that there is any claim at all in the interpretation as to whether the scampi claim for 20 percent will extend well beyond New Zealand waters, maybe as far as Norway.

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clause 67 Qualifying years

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I am very enthusiastic about commenting on clause 67, which refers to the particular fishers who are being allocated scampi quota—or who are not being allocated scampi quota, as the case may be. I am intrigued. I am sure that the member Ian Ewen-Street will comment on his amendment to that particular clause. I see that his amendment, which is not small, seeks to address, as he states, the unfairness, unreasonableness, and unlawfulness that he sees in the scampi fishery. I commend him for that attempt.

Of course, we in the National Party are concerned, and I know other parties are also concerned, that by fixing and repairing one perceived grievance, we will then create another perceived grievance. What the member Ian Ewen-Street has done, through his amendment, is that with his limited judgment he has made a line call that a whole lot of fishers will not get scampi quota, or will get less scampi quota, and a whole lot of other fishers will get scampi quota, or will get more scampi quota. For instance, I note that he wants to take out the catch history related to the vessels the Drysdale and the Petersen. I believe they were Simunovich vessels, fishing for scampi during a particular period.

The member Ian Ewen-Street might like to take account of the fact that the select committee and the State Services Commission’s commission of inquiry clearly said that during those years the Drysdale and the Petersen caught fish that should have gone towards the quota allocation. Although they did it, in a sense, outside the permit at the time, the reality is it was the mistake of the Ministry of Fisheries, or the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries, that they were allowed to fish during that time and rack up catch history.

So we looked at it seriously. Should we take out their history during that period, which is indicated here? We decided that, on balance, the reality is they did catch the fish, they were under the clear impression that they were allowed to catch the fish, and they certainly spent money on diesel and labour to catch the fish, so why penalise them for a mistake that was not their own? That is why we are happy for the catch history of the Drysdale and the Peterson to be included, and not taken out as the member Ian Ewen-Street suggests.

In this allocation we got confirmation today in the House from the Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, that there will be surplus Crown quota, particularly now in area 3. Members will notice, in respect of the qualifying years in clause 67, that the National Party makes some comments in the commentary on the bill about surplus Crown quota. I would like to be eloquent with regard to the commentary on the bill, but unfortunately my memory evades me. However, I have it written down. It states: “It was National’s view that when scampi is placed into the QMS the ministry investigate giving the seven aggrieved fishers identified in the Primary Production Committee Inquiry report … a right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management areas (QMAs) they historically indicated they wished to fish.”

We are not saying, necessarily, to do it that way, but at least to investigate the possibility of giving them a right of first refusal for that excess Crown quota. I think that is something the Minister ought to look at and, with the passing of this bill, he can look at. There is no reason why the Government cannot give a preferential right or a right of first refusal. It is a legitimate tendering process approach.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): Members will note that I have put forward an amendment to clause 67, and I would like to point out a typographic error in the first line. It should be “section 2(2)” rather than “section 2(20)”. That clause concerns the qualifying years, and I make a couple of points about that.

First of all, the idea of having the qualifying years as the years from 1990 to 1992 introduces a considerable unfairness if one takes into account the fact that in the 1990-91 year, fishers were allocated individual catch entitlements. If they then went out and fished in the second year using their individual catch entitlement allocation, they were effectively double dipping: they could get a double allocation from the one lot of fish they had actually caught—which is an unfairness in itself.

The second unfairness concerns the boats Simunovich Fisheries had—the Drysdale and the Petersen. Mr Heatley says that the company was entitled to have them there, and that incorrect information was given by the ministry.

Phil Heatley: Impression.

IAN EWEN-STREET: OK—an impression was given by them. There was a very clear impression, in writing from the ministry in fact, to all other fishers to say that those years would not be the catch history years. So my sympathy for Simunovich Fisheries is very, very limited. I take Mr Heatley’s point, but compared with the other fishers who were actively excluded from the fishery in those years—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have just heard a cellphone. The member will please turn it off.

IAN EWEN-STREET: Is there a doctor in the house! My first suggestion in the amendments I have put forward is that the catch history years of 1990-92 be modified, so that in areas 1 and 2 the catch history is based on the first year only, not on the individual catch entitlement allocations from the first year that then aggregate into the second year.

Secondly, of course, the Petersen and the Drysdale should be taken away, because those boats were fishing when improperly permitted. The reason is that Simunovich Fisheries was told it could use five boats at any one time. It used the Petersen and the Drysdale without taking its other boats out of service, and when there was a breakdown it used them in an immediate rollover to replace the ones that had broken down. For argument’s sake, that was an opportunity not given to fishers with a single boat. If those fishers had had breakdowns, they would simply have had to go without fishing.

In area 4 west, I am suggesting that we use the best 12 consecutive months in the period of 1991-93. In area 4 east—that is, the Chatham Rise area—there is an opportunity to provide a “Chatham Islands quota management area” that again uses the 1990-92 catch history years, and again excludes the catch history of the Drysdale and the Petersen.

The whole problem associated with scampi is allocation. If the fishers who were involved in the industry—or who should have been involved in the industry but were not because of mistakes by the ministry—were given a reasonable allocation, then I think the whole problem about scampi fisheries would simply disappear.

The allocation this model gives, using the qualifying years of 1990-92, creates enormous injustice. The people who have been dealt with in an unjust way have proved their case over and over again. They have taken it to court and they have won, they have taken it to the Court of Appeal and they have won—and I could go on.

What we need to do is give a fair allocation. If that means taking a little bit away from Simunovich Fisheries that that company should never have had in the first place, it is not actually taking anything away from it. It is like a person picking up a $10 note and having the use of it for a year, until the person realises it is somebody else’s $10 note and has to give it back. It was not that person’s in the first place, so it has not been taken away from him or her.

It is interesting that the years 1990-92 are used for area 6B, because that is an area that Simunovich Fisheries did not fish in. It did not have catch history there.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like you to take note that this is the substantive part of the bill, and I think members may want to take more than one call.

The issue that Ian Ewen-Street has just spoken about, whereby we attempted to change the qualifications of the Drysdale and the Petersen, was worthy of investigation. The Primary Production Committee, following the report it had done into the scampi issue that concluded in December last year, was aware of the injustices that had occurred. The people who had received those injustices inevitably said to us that they wanted a solution not with a monetary payment but with quota, and that point was accepted.

However, we then have to look at the people who fished legitimately, according to the law that subsequently allocated the quota years. Those people had rights to what they legitimately obtained.

Ian Ewen-Street: But they weren’t legitimate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Ewen-Street interrupts and says that the Petersenand the Drysdale were not legitimate. The operators of those two vessels felt they were legitimate at the time they commenced fishing. I will accept that they were not. They subsequently applied to the Ministry of Fisheries and were retrospectively validated to obtain those catches.

So I say to Ian Ewen-Street—who I think genuinely put a lot of effort into his amendment, and in fairness to him—that the select committee also considered whether his provision would be a means of creating some fairness out of the unfairness. But we resolved by majority that we should not create a further injustice by taking something that had been legitimately obtained—legitimately but also retrospectively, I will accept—and I do not think the member really thinks we should do that, either. It is not a fair argument to say that we should now just change the allocation of one particular operator—Simunovich Fisheries, which happens to operate the Petersen and the Drysdale—simply because it has a lion’s share of the fishery and a little bit taken off it will not matter.

The reasons why the qualifying years were established in the Fisheries Act of 1996 mean that nobody at the time realised the significance of those years. We found out through the select committee inquiry that the fishers of the time had been quite categorically told by ministry officials that those years would not create catch history but, subsequently, the law that was passed by Parliament established those years, and that is the law of New Zealand. If my memory serves me right, it was voted for by the major parties in 1996 and, probably, by the lot. So the qualifying years do count.

The issue then becomes a question of whether those extremely large vessels were allowed in. I say, having reread the report by the Primary Production Committee and having read, in detail, the Helen Cull report released by the State Services Commission, that there is no doubt that those vessels, subsequently, were given retrospective approval to operate in those fisheries at the time. There is no doubt in my mind that that was the case.

Ian Ewen-Street: That doesn’t make it fair.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Ian Ewen-Street says that that does not make it fair. That is true. I will accept that it does not make it fair, and a number of aggrieved fishers were identified. I will pick up shortly on Phil Heatley’s point about a method by which we sought to address that unfairness. But I say to Mr Ewen-Street that it is equally unfair to take catch off somebody else who has legitimately obtained it.

I come to Phil Heatley’s point. The National Party was of the opinion that those who received unfair treatment should receive, if possible, more than just monetary compensation. As those fishers kept saying to us, it is quota that is important. There was, and is, headroom available in some of the scampi areas. I do not think that we cannot fairly address the unfairness to them by giving them a discounted price and entry into the quota management system, but there is an opportunity to do what we did with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act—to give people whom we recognise as having been aggrieved the opportunity to purchase at a preferential rate.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): We are debating clause 67, “Qualifying years”. I want to read to the Committee some correspondence from United Fisheries, one of the players in the scampi game, and I hope the Committee will reflect on those qualifying years as I do so: “United Fisheries was one of the very first fishing companies to enter the scampi fishery and was the first company to be issued with a commercial permit for scampi fishing. The salient point here is from the late 1980s onwards, United Fisheries was unable to obtain any scampi permits. They have always argued that they were wrongfully denied access to the scampi fishery during that crucial time, between 1988 and 1992 and thereafter.”

So that was a company that did qualify. It was trying to fish during that time, but it was denied access by the ministry. Is that fair? Absolutely not. But really, this issue goes beyond the word “fairness”. We know that what is fair to one person is not necessarily fair to the next. In trying to allocate fairness to everybody, I suspect we will end up with nothing but a huge amount of unfairness. I personally have always believed that the word “fairness” should be struck from the English language. What should happen is that ministries, or allocations, should do what is right. I repeat that. We should always do what is right. Ultimately, I think these things will become fair after a period of time.

Certainly, during the qualifying years, United Fisheries and others were treated very, very unfairly, especially those down in the far South. The Dunedin office of the ministry had a policy of not issuing scampi permits during that time. That was a method of excluding that particular company. Others were allocated potting devices, by which scampi crawled into the pot. That was just a waste of time. The time, effort, and amount of catch was just not relevant. One could not catch commercially. Those that were involved in potting to establish some sort of catch history during those qualifying years were, again, not treated as they should have been.

I have to wonder why we have qualifying years—why we have that arbitrary figure. Some would argue that in any of these things one needs to have a definitive time frame of 1, 2, or 3 years. It seems to me that when a company or a fisher can show that there has been effort—their boat might have been laid up for some reason or another, such as a broken crankshaft, or the fisherman himself might have had a broken leg and been out of action for 6 months or so—an arbitrary ruling in legislation that something has to happen during particular times or in particular years can be very, very unfair.

Again, I come back to the point I made earlier. We will always have unfairness surrounding every fishery that we have ever allocated quota to. I guess that goes back to the days of blue cod, orange roughy, or hoki or—it does not really matter. I suspect the question of fairness during the qualifying years was a difficult one to determine. While there is every sympathy and understanding for those particular companies, especially in the scampi fishery, it is fair to say that we are hopeful that ultimately what is right will occur and that the ministry will understand and recognise that the unfairness that has gone on should be rectified.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I have been seeking a call on this bill for some time, and I need to say at the outset that this bill is probably the most unfair thing I have seen in my time in Parliament. I am reminded of the words of none other than Albert Einstein. He said that some of the things we do count are not worth counting, and some of the things we can count do not count—and that is exactly what we have here with this legislation tonight, and with this proposal here. We have an arbitrary decision made by a Minister at a point in time, based on the technology that is available today, which ultimately demonstrates a huge amount of, what should one say, discretionary decision-making based on the advice that he has been given, and it is unfair.

At the end of the day, there is no other way to sum it up but to say it is unfair. If one looks at the list of people who submitted to the Primary Production Committee, and at the extensive process that that very, very able select committee went through, particularly in relation to this part of the bill, which was the time issue around quota or the fish that went into quota, one cannot help but conclude that the very, very good select committee did the best it could with what was available but was often given bad advice. There was a huge amount of unfairness in the process that took place leading up to that point in time.

That being said, what should members do now to move forward? There is a recommendation here before the Committee, and I yield to my learned colleagues who were in the select committee because it is a hugely complex issue. This is demonstrated by the number of submissions that were put forward, and certainly demonstrated by the depth of work that had gone on by some of those people to try to establish how to move forward from this point. I yield to them when they say that this is probably about as good as we can get under the circumstances. But there are a number of people who are still outside of that, and they need to be considered. Those who came before the select committee and told the select committee that history had been bad for them included Mr Trevor Goodship and Pranfield Holdings, Mr Wayne Howell and H G Cave, United Fisheries, Vautier Shelf Company and Mr Middleton, Mr Noel McLellan, and Sealord Group.

The National Party said in its report, in the commentary on the bill, that there are a number of others who potentially, for whatever reason, may come through the system with a proposal that is equally as robust as those that I have mentioned. If that were to happen, I would presume that the Minister, with the particular legislation that is before Parliament today, will take them on board as well, if that were to happen. Maybe the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, will take a call and tell us whether that is so. What I do know is that there has been a tremendous amount of, I guess, parliamentary consideration of this matter, and the decision at the end of the day is just an arbitrary decision made by those with the information that was provided to them.

I have listened with great interest to the concerns put forward by Mr Ewen-Street, who was on the select committee for a while, and then was absent from the select committee. I think someone said earlier he was a victim of by-catch, and potentially that is so, I am not sure. But he was absent from the select committee for a while—let us leave it at that. He was affected by by-catch at the select committee, that is for sure. That having been said, he has some concerns that, on the surface, sound fairly genuine.

The problem is we cannot fix one grievance by creating another, and that is where the National Party view differs from that of Mr Ewen-Street. I say to Mr Ewen-Street that we cannot take from one group to give to another in an attempt to try to fix a past grievance, even though I know the Green Party has an egalitarian approach to these kinds of things, and plays a Robin Hood role on a lot of things—that is not going to be fair either, quite frankly. So when it comes to this particular clause, I think he may be a little bit misguided in his approach to that. The quota management of scampi, or getting scampi into the quota management system, is clearly the best way to manage this fishery, based on the science that is available today.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 40

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 67 be agreed to:

to delete from paragraph (a) of new section 33 all the words after the words “section 2(2) of the Fisheries Amendment Act 1994” and substitute the following new subparagraphs:

(i) In area SCI 1, allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel Drysdale), adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee.

(ii) In area SCI 2, allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel Drysdale), adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee.

(ii) In area SCI 4W, allocate quota based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1993 (excluding the catch history of the vessels Drysdale and Petersen), adjusted to reflect errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. Divide unallocated quota equally between qualifying fishers*.

(iv) In area SCI 4E, reduce size of this area to the area so it becomes a “Chatham Islands quota management area”. Allocate quota to fishers based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1992 (excluding the catch history of the vessels Drysdale and Petersen). Allocate remaining quota to Chatham Islands Enterprises Trust.

(v) In area SCI 4R, the residual area of the previous area SCI 4, allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers*.

(vi) In areas SCI 5, 7 and 9, allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers.

(vii) In area SCI 6A, allocate quota based on 1991-92 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessels Petersen and Drysdale).

(viii) In area SCI 6B, allocate quota based on the 1992-93 catch history.

*: “Qualifying fishers” is defined to include all existing permit holders plus those who should have been scampi permit holders had the Ministry managed the fishery lawfully, reasonably and fairly plus those listed by the Primary Production Committee as having been treated unfairly.

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

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 105

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 67 be agreed to.

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 New heading and sections inserted

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Clause 68 has been particularly intriguing for the National Party because one of the aspects it talks about is the boundary changes between quota management area 3, which is just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island, and quota management area 4, which is roughly around the Chatham Rise. What happens under clause 68 is that the boundary that is the dividing line between those two areas, after a decade and a half of fishing scampi, is to be shifted eastward. That was of huge concern to National members because we knew that shifting the boundary would change the quota management allocations to each of the fishers, the amount of surplus Crown quota available for tendering to the market in general, and also, and more important, affect the management and sustainability of the fishery.

We did not get sufficient information from the Ministry of Fisheries at the select committee to understand clearly why the boundary change was necessary. We were quite concerned that in shifting the boundary what may happen is that, firstly, the fishery would not be managed sustainably, and secondly, a number of fishers would be locked out of the scampi fishery forever, and we did not want to see that happen. However, I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries, and I would like to extend some gratitude to him today, because in the House he answered clearly my question, and the question from United Future MP Larry Baldock, about why the move of the line was necessary.

Two issues came out of that. Firstly, in moving the line, there would be more surplus Crown quota to be tendered. It would seem strange that if an internal line were moved, suddenly there would be more fish to catch. However, as we understand it, when the line is shifted, people are able to lift the amount of fish that can be caught in area 4. If the line were back where it was, the amount of fish that could be caught could not be lifted, because there would be no guarantee that fish in that particular area 4 would be targeted. I understand the reasoning there. So more quota will be available for tendering, and we are pleased about the maximum utilisation with sustainability. That, of course, is a Fisheries Act goal.

The second issue—and one raised by Larry Baldock—is the issue of sustainability: whether it was sustainable, in the Ministry’s view. Again, the Minister gave a positive answer in the House today. We are pleased to say that we understood his reasoning. He was saying quite simply that by shifting the line, more fish would be available to be caught, the fish would be utilised better in a sustainable manner, and secondly, more Crown quota would be available for tendering. So we are pleased about that.

With regard to that, I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the National Party suggestion in the select committee report back that where there is excess Crown quota, the Minister could consider giving the aggrieved fishers listed in our inquiry the right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management allocations they historically indicated they wished to fish.

We are not saying that that is something the Minister should definitely do, but it is something that ministry officials ought to consider, to put the issues of the seven aggrieved fishers we listed behind them so that they can fish for scampi, put those issues behind the ministry so that the ministry can get on and manage the scampi fishery properly, and certainly put the scampi issues behind the whole seafood industry, which, at the moment, is being hamstrung by the bad press of that fishery.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to speak to clause 68 also and I will address the issue of the boundary change that is now recommended in the bill. On behalf of United Future I shall explain how we have come into this situation, not having been on the select committee in the first instance, and not having worked through all the issues that other members on the select committee have worked through. The issue of the boundary change really exercised our minds when we were asked to support the legislation. We were prepared to support the recommendation of the committee, in terms of the allocation to those aggrieved parties. It seemed to be the best solution possible, and we certainly respected all the time and effort that other members had put into coming up with a solution to things that had been mentioned in this debate.

So far I have not participated in the other clause-by-clause issues. I think they have been covered very well by others. It was the issue of the boundary change that was of most concern to us, and mainly that we could understand why it was happening. The member who spoke before me also covered the issue very well, and we are grateful, as he has been, to the Minister and the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries for assisting with our inquiries. The issue was quite complicated and difficult to get our heads around, and the additional information that was given to us was gratefully received, and enabled us to say today that we supported the boundary being where it is. We also support the bill being passed this week so that it can take effect. United Future is supportive of scampi coming into the quota management system this year and not having to wait.

Now that we understand that the boundary was changed in order to provide greater sustainable management of the fishery, and to create more quota, we are very pleased to be able to support this clause, and the schedules that will accompany it when the debate gets to that point, so that it is the best outcome for all those who have been involved in the process. The more quota that can be created means more, whether tendered or allocated, for those who have missed out, and ultimately the sustainability of our asset in that fishery is managed.

The fish stock around the Chatham Islands can be utilised to its maximum potential, and the fish stock around Mernoo Bank can also be managed without the complication of a boundary line running right through the centre that would lead to the possibility of misreporting, if trawlers moved across the imaginary line in the sea. We are now comfortable that that makes very good sense and is the best possible scenario for the future.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The Committee put a lot of time into the rationale for changing the boundaries, because we were concerned about any effect it may have on further allocations to the fishers who qualified. Conversely, we were concerned about the effect it would then have on the National Party’s solution to try to address some of the unfairness. I shall go back to that issue first, because it was not covered well in the earlier debate.

The committee, and those who have followed this issue, all accept that unfairness occurred. I do not think that there is any doubt about that in anybody’s mind. The issue is then how we move to address that. The National Party feels that it has advanced a very sensible solution, whereby where headroom is available, then the identified aggrieved people have a preferential right of tender at the market price. Fiscally, it will cost the Government absolutely nothing, but it will move to satisfy many of the concerns.

The issue then regarding the movement of boundaries becomes extremely important if the headroom available changes negatively for the Crown. That is where I have trouble with the information that was then provided to the select committee. We asked for a schedule, which was given to the select committee, about what effect would occur for the individual fishers. The first information they came back with showed that the largest fisher in the area—Simunovich Fisheries—would receive an additional 129 tonnes of allocation by changing the boundary areas, and the Crown, conversely, would receive 47 tonnes less of headroom available. The select committee then proceeded to deliberate on the legislation, only to find at the very eleventh hour—and the eleventh hour was perhaps 10 or 15 minutes later—that a further piece of paper was presented to the select committee that stated, lo and behold, that the Crown would also be a winner.

It is certainly fully explicable that the select committee had trouble understanding the effect of the change of boundaries when the officials themselves were not able to state categorically who were the benefactors and who were the losers. Our colleague Phil Heatley has now spent additional time with the Minister and ministry officials and is convinced that by the moving of the boundaries the issue of available headroom actually increases substantially.

The reasoning for the select committee being advised by the officials that the boundaries needed to be changed was one of sustainability. If that is an issue, then that should have been known to us quite some time earlier. The issue of sustainability still remains a question in my mind, whereby the suggestion is that the Committee will agree to the change of boundaries tonight yet we are doing that change because we are worried about sustainability, but the result will be that it allows an increased amount of fish to be caught. There may be a logical explanation that the Minister can help us with, but it is certainly something of a puzzle to me at this stage that the rationale for saying we need to urgently change these boundaries is that the sustainability issues exist—and we are then told that it will allow additional fish to be caught, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

The boundary changes certainly allow additional quota to be allocated to those who have been lucky enough to be within the system and lucky enough to have obtained catch history over those vital years that we discussed in regard to the previous clause.

Ian Ewen-Street: It wasn’t luck.

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I guess that is true, and those people were actually out there fishing and doing the job at the time, but the issue around the fairness is that there were a large number of other people who also wanted to be out there doing the fishing at the time, and for reasons that are now familiar to many people in this Committee they were not given the opportunity to do so.

Having said that, I still think that the National Party’s suggestion, which the Government was not prepared to accept at the select committee stage, should be given further consideration by the Government. The aggrieved fishers do not simply want a monetary contribution as a means of settling their grievance. They want the opportunity to fish. Many of them had proven track records as fishers, but they were certainly not given the opportunity. Somebody mentioned United Fisheries earlier. United Fisheries applied and applied, and the ministry kept saying that that company had not applied.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): Like my colleague Phil Heatley I was somewhat mollified by the Minister’s answers in question time today, because I have been quite strongly opposed to the idea that the boundary changes should take place. However, like David Carter, I am still puzzled as to how one can change the boundaries for sustainability reasons and yet allow more fish to be caught. It seems like a paradox that only the Ministry of Fisheries could come up with—logic it away in some magic way. I do not really understand the process that the ministry went through to get to that point. It is clear that there was some consultation with the industry over a period of time, and I commend the ministry for that; but it is also clear that not everybody was consulted.

Why is it that the ministry waited until the very last minute, after the two inquiries were over and after the Primary Production Committee was just about done with its consideration of the bill, before it announced that it would change these boundaries? The ministry claimed to have all sorts of scientific evidence, and it may be right, but why did it leave it so long? My main opposition to it, apart from my puzzlement over the sustainability issue, is why it is that every time the ministry makes a mistake or makes a line-ball call it favours one fisher over everybody else—and this is another example of Simunovich Fisheries being favoured over everybody else.

First of all, as Mr Carter said, when the ministry came in it gave us what effectively was a blank sheet of paper. I do not think I am saying things out of school by saying that we were utterly outraged that the ministry could come to us and give us a blank sheet of paper, as if we would not know what the heck was going on.

Phil Heatley: Fill it in yourself.

IAN EWEN-STREET: Yes. When the ministry realised that we were on to it, it suddenly came back with another sheet of paper that stated that Simunovich Fisheries would get 129 tonnes extra, which was more than the total allocation for any other fisher. Let me say that again: the increase for Simunovich was greater than the total allocation for any other fisher. When we rejected that as being as equally outrageous as being given a blank sheet of paper, the ministry came back about an hour later with a third sheet of paper. This time the sheet of paper stated that Simunovich Fisheries was to get—oh, gosh—only 64 tonnes extra. Again, that was more than any fisher in the industry, except Sanford Ltd.

Hon David Carter: Is Sanford here?

IAN EWEN-STREET: Yes, I think that Sanford Ltd was to get 89 tonnes. If we look at the figures, we see that the ministry has increased the headroom by 200 tonnes. Do those figures add up to 200 tonnes? Does that third sheet of paper actually make sense? Maybe it does, but I need a bit more explanation from the ministry to actually agree with it. It is a mishmash. If I felt confident that the ministry was operating on the basis of scientific evidence, it would not have come up with three different versions of this event in the one day. Why should we have confidence in the third sheet of paper any more than in the blank one? It seems like a whole series of guesses.

I have to admire the ministry, though. It has got to this point by steadfastly believing that allocation on the basis of the 1990-1992 catch history years was the way to go. The ministry lost in the court case in the High Court. It told the Regulations Review Committee that if its new regulations were struck down by the court, it would go back and start afresh. It did lose in court, but did it go back and start afresh? No, it did not—“Our policy is to allocate on the 1990-1992 catch history years.” Two inquiries have slammed the ministry in the strongest terms possible, yet it has carried on and, to its credit, is getting this through Parliament. It has conned the Government. Why are we doing this? It has been shown over and over again to be wrong and unfair.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I have an amendment to this particular clause. I am the first to admit it is probably not perfect, and I am sure that members of this Committee could word it better, perhaps make it a little clearer, or whatever. However, it is designed—and I am sure Mr Ian Ewen-Street will be delighted to hear this—to achieve what we have been discussing all evening: the question of fairness. We have had continual complaints from fishers that they have been shut out, and will be into the future. I will not go through the names again; the ministry knows full well who they are. My amendment offers an opportunity in the future for those who want to go scampi fishing to do so.

One thing is certain around the fishing industry—that is, that quota will be traded, regardless of what species is involved. Those who held quota 10 years ago in orange roughy, crayfish, or whatever fishery it might be, have traded. My amendment, which I hope will be picked up by the Committee, suggests that when quota is legitimately traded between a willing seller and a willing buyer, 20 percent of the value of that quota—and the value will be established when two people have a deal to do—should be made available to those who have been adversely affected. My amendment proposes to add subsection (6) to section 369R, and states: “(b) The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for ‘scampi’ and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement and mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred.” So this amendment is an attempt to redress the problems that do exist.

I repeat, in the not too distant future the fishing industry will languish. Indeed, I am told that it is languishing somewhat right now. The cost of diesel, for example, is getting to a level where it will make fishing unproductive for a number of individuals or companies. They will, no doubt, sell their quota in order to survive, or move on to some other fishery or into another line of business. Quite clearly, scampi quota will be on the market at some stage, and I think that if this amendment is accepted, there is an opportunity of redress—or to add some redress, anyway—for fishers who have been shut out and who want to advance their cause and prospects in the scampi fishery. I hope that the Committee will consider this particular amendment.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): This is a critical part of the debate, and I note that my colleague Mr Ardern is also seeking a call. Also, my good friends from New Zealand First have not yet had the opportunity to take a call, but I am sure they will. Certainly, if the Chair allows the debate to range over these issues it will be very worthwhile, and it will be to the betterment of the fishery.

National has provided conditional support thus far with regard to this bill. On my way down to the Chamber I felt very certain in my mind that that support would be withdrawn if we could not get some satisfaction as to why these boundary changes have been made. I am somewhat mollified by the information my colleague Mr Heatley shared with me, but I still have some questions for the Minister. I note that other questions have been posed to him, as well. I would like him to get to his feet and address some of the issues so that I have a better understanding of how moving these boundaries in such an arbitrary way will enhance the fishery and enable it to be managed on a sustainable basis. I think that is a very fair question. I have heard other members putting that question to the Minister, and, if we could get some satisfaction around that, I think the Minister might get some sense of cooperation from us. I have to say, though, that in offering his answer to us, I would like more advice than his simply saying: “My ministry officials told me so.” I think it only fair and reasonable, given the circumstances that surround the ministry’s performance on this legislation, that we are given some sense of independence in the advice we receive. I think it is wholly reasonable that the Minister give us an assurance that the advice has been sought.

There is a significant opinion—maybe it has changed over the last 24 hours—that says that the boundary changes should not be moved and that moving them is simply of little practical use. I note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research says there is no justifiable reason why we should change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. I accept that new information does, and can, come to hand. If that is the case, and if there have been compelling reasons why these changes are not simply arbitrary decisions made by the Minister and his officials, then I will listen carefully to what those reasons are. That necessitates the Minister getting to his feet and giving some explanations. I am perfectly happy to yield the balance of my call if he will give me some indication that he will get on his feet and take a call. However, it seems he will not. One then wonders why we get suspicious about what is actually driving these changes. We have a Minister who, I accept, is new to his role. I accept that he takes advice from his officials because he simply does not have the experience to make these decisions himself. But surely instinct would tell him—given the circumstances surrounding the performance of the ministry—to seek independent advice. I can only conclude that he is not getting to his feet to answer the questions because he simply does not have that advice.

I have to tell the Minister that I am particularly concerned at the way that United Fisheries and the six other fishers that my colleagues named have been treated around this quota issue. It is no fault of theirs that they have no part, or a limited part, in the scampi catch at the moment. The decision of the Minister’s officials not to bring some sort of closure and justice for them is wholly wrong. I want to quote from part of a letter from Geoffrey Palmer, who wrote from Chen Palmer and Partners, to every member of Parliament—if I can find it. I cannot find it, but he pointed out that getting things wrong is not the essence of the issue, but how or whether we put things right is. That, essentially, is the issue. The Minister is not giving me any confidence that he is prepared to deal with these issues.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerrard Eckhoff to clause 68 be agreed to:

to add to section 369R the following new subsection:

(6) Notwithstanding anything else in this section or this Act

(a) Each quota initially allocated for scampi pursuant to Section 369O must be made subject to an encumbrance requiring the payment of an amount not exceeding 20 percent of the value of the quota at the payment calculation time, to the Chief Executive, for distribution in accordance of paragraph b of this subsection. The payment calculation time will be a date not later than 31 August 2006.

(b) The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for “scampi” and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement or mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports, not occurred.

(c) In determining a scenario for the purposes of paragraph b the catch history Review Committee may make whatever assumptions it reasonably considers necessary for the purpose.

(d) The Catch History Review Committee must determine the net effect on affected parties of the difference between the outcome under the scenario, and the initial allocations effected by the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4) of 2004, and so far as it may be achieved within the 20 percent of value allowance provided by this subsection, make payments funded by parties who have been advantaged in comparison to the scenario, to parties who have been disadvantaged in comparison to the scenario.

(e) On the payment calculation date the advantaged parties must pay the disadvantaged parties the amounts determined by the Catch History Review Committee, having been advised of those amounts no less than 50 working days previously.

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

Ayes 14

Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Māori Party 1.

Noes 102

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 68 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent; Māori Party 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 and Schedule 2

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave that clause 69 and schedule 2 be one wide-ranging debate, but that the question be put separately on the clause and the schedule. We will be canvassing the same arguments in both clause 69 and schedule 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can we have some definition from you about what a wide-ranging debate is. Does the member mean that it is a debate across the clause and the schedule and not back across the bill?

Lindsay Tisch: I am talking about a wide-ranging debate on schedule 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? That will occur, then. The question is that clause 69 stand part. The debate includes schedule 2, as agreed.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Members will recall that I indicated that the issue of scampi fishing area 3, just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island, and the new fishing area scampi 4 around the Chatham Rise, caused some anguish in the scampi fishing industry. Certainly it did in the Primary Production Committee and within the National Party, because we saw those boundaries being changed.

Clause 69 states: “The principal Act is amended by adding the Schedules 13 and 14 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act.” Schedule 13, of course, is the one that shifts those very boundaries. I should be more specific: it does not affect the outside boundary of areas 3 and 4, but rather the internal dividing line, which is moved eastward over some hundreds of kilometres. In other words, it expands fishing area 3 well out east of the east coast of the South Island, and more towards the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Rise. We wondered why shifting an internal boundary line, given that the outside boundary did not change, would suddenly make available more and more fish. The response we had is that fishers will be forced to fish specifically around the Chatham Rise, as well as off the east coast of the South Island. They cannot move between the two fishing grounds without actually moving from fishing area 3 to fishing area 4, and back. That seems fair enough to me.

We will support these schedules, because we believe that the change in the areas is appropriate for sustainability and utilisation reasons. With the help of the maps, and in probably under 1 minute, I have been able to explain to a large number of my colleagues why we are doing this, yet it has taken weeks and weeks to get answers from the ministry about why it is necessary. Once the ministry gave us the right answer, everyone understood it clearly—just like that. It is of concern to us—certainly to those of us on the select committee—why we could not have had that simple answer in the first place. I guess it is a message to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Minister that when explaining these things they should go back to first principles and not talk about too much detail, just the practical aspects. When we see the practical aspects it is easy to understand them, and easy to support them. So we support those schedules.

I will be leaving it to my colleague David Carter to speak about schedule 14 specifically, which, of course, is the scampi provisional catch history allocations to the various companies involved in the scampi fishery historically. We are still concerned that a number of fishers have been left out of the fishery. They are the aggrieved fishers, as listed in the select committee scampi inquiry report. There were seven of them. A number of them, I see in the schedules, still get catch history for those areas where they caught scampi, but they are aggrieved fishers because there are other areas where they could have caught scampi, or there is more scampi they could have caught, adding to their catch history, if only they were able to obtain or execute the permits they were granted.

There is one person in particular who I would like to mention, Trevor Goodship—a man who wanted to go scampi fishing for himself, build up his catch history, and eventually pass on his business to his family. He has been locked out. He is aggrieved, and I would like to hear some assurance from the Minister that negotiations with him are continuing. I know that his compensation package, or ex gratia payment, was capped at $800,000 by Labour Party members on the select committee. We are not sure where they got that capping idea from, but we do know that he is not listed in any of these schedules to receive an allocation. He genuinely wanted to go scampi fishing. Everyone agrees, including the courts, that he should have been able to go scampi fishing, and we would like to see that result.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I would like to take a brief call to respond to the issues that have just been raised again around the boundary recommendation and change, which Mr Heatley has just canvassed and which were canvassed earlier. I wish to make it quite clear to the Committee that I am glad that acknowledgment has just been given of the lengths the ministry and my office went to in order to provide the information people asked for. But I find it extraordinarily unfortunate when members of this House, such as Mr Ewen-Street and others, bag ministry staff for doing what they were asked to do, by me, very late at night. They worked under extreme pressure, with very little notice, to provide, at my request and that of Mr Carter, information for the Primary Production Committee the next day. The fact that it was incomplete is not a criticism of the ministry; it is a compliment to the effort those staff put in that night, very late. The meeting that took place between me and Mr Carter was at 9 p.m. or thereabouts. The ministry staff worked late that night, and they worked the next morning. I think we see in this bill the results of a good, cooperative effort, and I am really sad that some of the comments that have been made tonight are so uncharitable and so downright misleading.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I was not going to take a call on clause 69, but I rise now to comment on the matters just raised by the Minister of Fisheries. The information that was given to the Primary Production Committee was simply not accurate. That is fact. I fully accept that the officials worked into the dead of night to try to get that information. The fault here lies with the Minister himself, who gave this bill to the select committee and said he wanted it back in 3 weeks because there was some urgency involved. The select committee went to the Minister and asked for an extension of time. The Minister personally refused to give that select committee an extension of time, because he had to get the bill back into the House urgently in order to have it progress—and that was about a month ago! He said he would put it in the urgency motion, but it never appeared in the urgency motion.

So I tell the Minister not to criticise the select committee members at all; they worked hard for that Minister to deliver the information back on time. What the Minister should do is question why a time limit was imposed whereby this legislation was given to us and we were told to get it back to the House within, I think—I cannot remember the time—about 3 weeks. I think the Minister should also take the opportunity to acknowledge that all the members of the select committee asked the Minister for 1 more week to finalise this issue. It was the Minister himself who refused to give us that time, and then he sat on the legislation. He forgot to put it in the urgency motion. We are now, within a matter of weeks of 1 October, rushing the bill through the Committee tonight so that it can have its third reading on Thursday, and, finally, the scampi issue may be resolved.

Having said that, I would like to talk briefly to schedule 14, in schedule 2. In my mind, that is the finality of this issue. There are some big winners. Simunovich Fisheries, which has been mentioned considerably through the debate tonight, is a big winner. But it went out there and fished. It went out there and saw the potential of the fishery.

Shane Ardern: It developed it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, Simunovich Fisheries claimed it had developed it solely. I do not think that is entirely true. I think a number of fishers wanted the opportunity of being involved in developing it. But, without doubt, the big player that took the big investment decisions and operated through those important years was Simunovich Fisheries.

That is the essence of the legislation that was passed in 1996. It recognised in retrospect that the fishers who had been active in chasing any particular species over the catch history years would ultimately be entitled to quota at the time that the species came into the quota management system. It was never anticipated, when the legislation was passed in 1996, that it would take years and years for that finally to happen. I guess that is the history of the scampi fishery. It is the reason for the select committee inquiry and the reason for the State Services Commission inquiry. But, at the end of the day, the National Party certainly acknowledges that its role is now to finalise this issue, so that the fish can continue to be sustainably harvested, and to acknowledge that there have been winners and losers, but, in terms of trying to right the unfairness, it is just not possible to undo the issues and the creation of catch history that occurred so many years ago.

I say finally that it is not fair to blame the select committee members who tonight have been critical of the information provided. There were categoric examples where the information was in conflict. The pressure on the officials was created by the Minister himself, who gave the select committee an indecent amount of time to consider the issues.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, there has been a voting error. The voting list is to be corrected. The vote on Gerrard Eckhoff’s amendment to clause 68 was announced as Ayes 13, Noes 102. The correct result is Ayes 14, Noes 102.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I think I may have an answer to the question the Minister of Fisheries will not answer. He has been asked to answer this question on many occasions. In fact, we thought he was going to answer it just a few moments ago when he rose to take a call. Instead, he made a mistake in trying to blame the select committee members for the haste with which this bill was dealt with. I refer to the arbitrary decision to shift the boundaries. How will shifting the boundaries of area 3 and area 4, allowing more fish to be caught, enhance the sustainability of the fishery? That is a very perplexing question for us on this side.

I have before me two maps. I have been looking at them and I think I have concluded how that may be possible. The Minister may take a call to confirm whether I am right or wrong. By shifting the internal boundary between area 3 and area 4 we have now driven the fishers further off shore, where they may not have otherwise gone. Therefore, we have expanded the amount of fish that has traditionally been harvested. We have sent the boats further out to sea, and by doing that have developed a larger area of the fishery. I say to the Minister that maybe that is wrong, but it is the only logical conclusion, when looking at these maps, that anybody could come to. It is just purely nuts, as a proposal, to suggest that by changing the boundaries we create more fish. That does not happen. The only way we can make the fishery larger is by increasing the area to include parts where fish have not historically been caught. I presume that is the correct answer. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley has a view on that, and he may think it is the answer too, but the Committee would dearly love to hear from the Minister and have that confirmed. At this point in time we are still in a vacuum; so are the scampi and the fishermen. The fishermen do not know whether that is the answer, as well.

This whole debate tonight around the allocation of scampi, and scampi entering into the quota management system, has been very interesting. A number of things have been canvassed by a number of members, but none more so than the whole debate about whether this process is fair. Overwhelmingly, one can only conclude that the answer is no. This process is not fair, and this Minister has compounded the problem. I do not think it is fair to blame him entirely for the problem, because it has been going on for a long time, and he is a new Minister. But it is just a pity he did not take advice from some more senior Ministers, and perhaps even some former Ministers, as to why we had got ourselves into this muddle. Instead, he has listened to the officials, who have over a number of years given bad advice to a succession of Governments and Ministers, and, once again, he is here tonight making an arbitrary decision about a boundary, and he will not tell us why. He will not say tonight why this boundary is being shifted, which effectively is what is happening in this bill.

This proposal did not go to the select committee. It has happened since the select committee process. The officials came back and said the boundaries should be shifted because there would be more fish. On the surface, how do they work that out? But if we look at the map we see that maybe it is possible. I say to the Minister that if we go all the way to Australia, well beyond our economic zone, maybe we will have more fish. Somebody suggested earlier tonight that if we go to Norway, where these fish hail from, we will have more fish. That may well be so. Maybe the ministry’s advisers have told the Minister that we should implement a quota management system in Norway. I am not sure, because he will not answer the question. The bottom line is that we cannot make more fish by shifting the line on the map. The only conclusion we can come to tonight is that the Minister has decided that with the area going further out to sea there will be more head space for those who feel aggrieved. Maybe the Minister will take a call and clear that up once and for all. The Committee, and anybody who is listening tonight, must be in a huge vacuum as to why he has made that decision.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I was not going to take a call on this component of the bill, but then the Minister of Fisheries rose and had the audacity to blame the members of the Primary Production Committee, and other members of this House who have come down to the Chamber tonight to debate this legislation, who have said that there is something wrong with the advice that he has been getting, and that some of that advice has come from the ministry. The ministry has been fingered by independent inquiries as being ad hoc, inconsistent, and unprofessional, and this Minister had the audacity to get up and blame the members of the select committee. How pathetic is he? Well, I tell members that he is hopeless, and that is why he will not stay in the job for very long at all. The Minister should set the tone for how he wants his ministry to perform. He should not stand up and blame others for his own poor performance.

Having said that, I will turn my attention to the issues of the schedules and why United Fisheries in particular must feel highly aggrieved with the process that this Minister is proposing as a solution.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Bring back Jenny.

BRIAN CONNELL: I hear Mr Mallard calling out—the man who is so dense that light bends around him—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that members should be referred to by their correct name.

BRIAN CONNELL: I thought I had pronounced his name correctly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, you did not.

BRIAN CONNELL: I have been referred to as Brian, Bryn, and Brain tonight, and I have not heard anyone objecting about that, but when this Minister and Mr Mallard get similar treatment they do not like it. Well, he has run into someone who is just a little bit harder in the head than he is. We will not worry about what Mr Mallard thinks, because he is a guy who, when the brains were given out, was not exactly home. All that he has ever done with his life is be a teacher, then come to this House—and he cannot even manage that particularly well. He wants to protect the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, because he knows he is hopeless. The Minister has demonstrated that to all the people who have been listening tonight.

I had started to refer to the schedules before I was rudely interrupted by Mr Mallard. I was beginning to say that I think United Fisheries and the other fishers who miss out somewhat under what this Government is proposing as a fair and equitable solution have cause to be totally despondent and to feel they have had no justice whatsoever under this process. The National Party, in the spirit of cooperation and using the benefit of our business experience, lent a perfectly workable solution to the Minister of Fisheries. But he is naive and inexperienced, and because he could not listen to those who knew better, he will not be in the job for long. He could not take advice or see past party lines. United Fisheries and those other six fishers are the ones who are missing out as a consequence. It is not just and it is not fair. The solution that was offered was entirely reasonable: give those fishers the first right of refusal. It could not be much fairer than that—provided they make a financial contribution. But what they are saying is that money is only part of the solution. This Minister did not have the capacity to get his head around that simple commercial issue, and that is the great tragedy.

So what happens? We have the courage to say that the way he is leading the ministry, and some of the performance from his officials, are not satisfactory. He then attacks the messenger. The Minister can mumble and grumble under his breath as much as he likes—that is all he is really good for. He has been invited on numerous occasions to get to his feet and answer some of these questions, but he has not had the conviction to do that. He is tough when he is sitting in his chair mumbling to the Chairman, but when he needs to get up and demonstrate that he has the capacity to get his head around this issue, he is not at home. It is no wonder that those fishers listening out there who have reason to be aggrieved have no confidence in him whatsoever.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 42

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Māori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to schedule 2 be agreed to:

to omit schedule 13 and substitute the following new schedule 13:

Quota management areas will remain unchanged.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 106

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have another amendment in the name of the honourable Ian Ewen-Street. It is an amendment to omit and substitute new schedule 14. However, I have ruled it out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision made on clause 67.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Bills

Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As I indicated to the House when the bill was introduced, the purpose of this bill is to provide statutory protection to New Zealand’s international reputation as a desirable location where international students can study without educational or financial risk.

This bill is a key part of the Government’s policy to encourage the sustainable growth of the export education sector by increasing confidence in the stability and security of New Zealand education providers. As a side point, this has not been helped by one member of this House, Pansy Wong, who attempts to be widely reported in China undermining the private education sector in New Zealand. I find it very regrettable that private individuals’ businesses are being put at risk by her approach to, and deliberate undermining of, the industry internationally. Some people take a broad view of the economy and try to be supportive of business people who are working hard in New Zealand, and other people deliberately undermine them. If I were to be generous I would say they did not care, but if I were not to be generous I would say they were possibly working with ulterior motives.

This bill is needed to protect what is now a $2 billion industry. The provisions mean that the cost of any future failure of private education providers will need to be borne by the sector, not by the taxpayer, as has been the case until now. I want to make it clear that this Government has looked after those students. It has worked very hard to look after students when language schools have collapsed. The National Party has opposed Labour’s attempts to look after those students, and I regret that the National Party has indicated far and wide that it does not care about international students. It does not care about them. It would have them on the streets without accommodation. It would have them without their tuition. That is the approach Ms Pansy Wong has taken, as has been widely reported. I know that most people around the world do not think the Kuomintang party has a major reputation in New Zealand. It is one that causes some concern.

Dail Jones: That’s Taiwan.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The National Party, actually. We got there. At least there is one bright member opposite—and, of course, one sitting in the middle.

The bill also, at the discretion of the Minister, allows for the reimbursement of any agency or Crown entity responsible for the administration of the levy for losses incurred as a result of the failure of private training establishments.

I would like to thank the members of the Education and Science Committee who worked on this bill. I especially thank the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First, who chaired the committee. I should place on record that Mr Donnelly and his party have indicated that they are opposed to international education. They are opposed to the number of foreign students coming to New Zealand. I thank them for being straightforward about that. Mr Donnelly chaired the committee in a way that was appropriate and neutral. He worked the business through, and that was good, as opposed to other people who indicate one way and perform the other, as the National Party has done. I thank the members of the select committee. I also thank Deborah Coddington. She is pretty straightforward. She has taken the approach that when a language school fails, international students should be just left on the street. That is an ACT approach, and that may be what they want, but it is not appropriate for this Government. This is a relatively simple little bill, and I commend it to the House.

PANSY WONG (National): The best this incompetent Minister of Education can do is to blame Pansy Wong for undermining export education. This bill has been gutted down to three pages, but it should never have been introduced. If this bill is passed, it will set a very bad and seriously flawed precedent. It holds private training providers financially responsible for the failure of their competitors, yet they have no say in the entry and monitoring of competitors in the export education sector.

This bill was brought to Parliament at the end of 2003 as a knee-jerk reaction to the collapse of both the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich New Zealand. Both of those institutions were registered and accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to enrol international students. No institution can enrol international students without being registered and accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Some Labour MPs persist in using the argument that this bill will establish a separate pool of funds similar to those established previously by motor vehicle dealers, accountants, or lawyers in the form of fidelity funds. The truth is far from it. Motor vehicle dealers, accountants, and lawyers themselves have the right to decide the criteria for membership of their organisations. Therefore, they are prepared to set up a fund to compensate clients for the misconduct of their members. But in the export education sector, only the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, a Government entity, can decide which institutions are allowed to enrol international students.

When a Government entity makes the decision as to who is allowed to enrol international students, why should other private education providers then be made to pay for its decision? If private training providers have to pay the extra levy, then they should be allowed to have a say as to who can enrol international students. But this bill does not provide for that, either.

National will not support the progress of this bill. National’s minority view makes it clear that the passage of this bill is totally unacceptable because, firstly, it simply sends the wrong message, which will encourage the wrong type of institution to join the export education sector. It will further excuse the New Zealand Qualifications Authority from being accountable for its decisions and non-performance. At present, for the privilege of being part of the export education sector a fixed fee, as well as a percentage of international students’ fees, is already collected by all institutions as a levy that is paid to the Ministry of Education. For the 6 months to 30 June 2003, the levy collected was $1.3 million. It was meant to be used for the development, promotion, and quality assurance of the export education system—but what quality assurance?

Let me share with the public answers to written questions asked through the select committee process. We asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority whether it was satisfied with its own performance in monitoring the Modern Age Institute of Learning’s trust accounts. It answered that it employed the appropriate procedures in order to gain the necessary assurances of compliance. Those assurances were very much dependent upon the integrity of those operating the accounts, and on statements made by those individuals to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It meant that when the trustees of those trust accounts told the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that all was well, the authority had done its job. Imagine if highway patrol police officers simply accepted every motorist’s assurance that he or she did not drive over the speed limit. This was further reinforced by information obtained under the Official Information Act. Apparently, the Hon Trevor Mallard’s office requested it under urgency from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on 9 September 2003, because the media and Opposition parties were asking hard questions on the collapse of the Modern Age Institute of Learning. Why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority not find out about the missing funds from the Modern Age Institute of Learning’s trust accounts?

Apparently the New Zealand Qualifications Authority conducted two audits within 6 months. It did not find out the problem that the money in the Modern Age Institute of Learning trust account belonging to the students was not there. According to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, that was because its audit was one of quality management. They were not financial audits, and the authority relied on statements made by the accountants with regard to the solvency of private training providers. What a trusting organisation!

The select committee received about 30 submissions, with half of those coming from private providers. The others came from the tertiary sector organisations that were not affected by the bill. Nonetheless, all of them opposed the bill. There were common themes from the opposition—from all the submitters—that there was a lack of consultation, that it was inequitable that one part of the sector should compensate for the fault of another part, and that the responsibility for the collapses of the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich should be shared by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Government. It is simply inequitable to proceed with this bill.

The Minister of Education might think that his by now famous and frequent U-turns to remove the retrospective nature of this bill should appease all concerned. The problem is none of us is convinced. The inherent problem in the export education sector is that the gatekeeper, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and the Ministry of Education do not have the capability to carry out that task. Some might think that the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich were just a two-off event that happened in 2003, but this year, we learnt of another collapse—that of the Paramount Institute. A $1 million trust fund went missing and, once again, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority was not very quick off its feet, even when former staff wrote to it with specific complaints. It was reported in the Sunday Star-Times that documents had been obtained showing that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority received repeated requests for help from staff at the Paramount Institute concerned at the way the owners handled student money. They complained that they did not get any response from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

It would be totally irresponsible for this bill to be passed to punish private training providers who, with others, have built up this export education sector to be one of the top five export earners. The decent thing for the Labour Government to do is to withdraw this bill and conduct an inquiry that would focus on the legislative adequacy of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and related agencies to carry out their roles, levels of resourcing, competence, and robustness in registration, accreditation, monitoring, auditing, and follow-up systems and procedures. Without this, the export education sector will continue to suffer. I can assure the House that no amount of bullying and insults from the Minister of Education to me personally will get him off from me demanding answers. This Minister’s incompetence is not covered up by him personally insulting me.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I rise to speak just briefly, because the Hon Brian Donnelly, at a greater age than when young men partake in sport, decided to take part in a sporting activity at the weekend—and is suffering somewhat at this time. With sympathy I speak on his behalf, because this call has been put upon me at short notice.

Last night I was fortunate to attend the awarding of an honorary doctorate of laws to John Hood at Auckland University. In the course of that evening there was great mention, speaker by speaker, of what an international reputation means for a university and for a higher learning institution—such as Auckland University in its achievements during John Hood’s 5½ years. That is the first matter I wish to bring before the House. There is an international reputation at stake here, not only for our public universities and tertiary institutions but also, in this case, for private providers. The second issue is that the bill is the result of a need that has developed in other places, and concerns the apparent ability of private providers in this country to meet that need in their response—learning institution by learning institution.

In the brief time that Mr Donnelly was away I sat in on the Education and Science Committee, and left with the following impressions. First, no sound Minister would wish prudent, thoughtful, private training establishment providers to be in any way responsible for those imprudent, shonky providers such as the three, and now four, that have collapsed in the last year or so—not one.

The other aspect that was so clearly demonstrated at the select committee was the apparent inability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to make any appropriate or proper response to the situation developing at that time, particularly in the authority’s very haphazard approach to the auditing of the relevant private providers’ accounts. It was very, very sloppy, to use a common expression. There was no concern to pin down the actions that were to be taken, and the consequent result, exactly as the previous speaker, Ms Wong, has said, was that months later nothing had been done to remedy the defect known about in January of the year of the collapse—nothing.

Therefore, this bill has two issues that New Zealand First is concerned about. First, no reason at all can be advanced for why the prudent provider should be saddled with the debt of those who are not up to the game, as it were, of maintaining a high standard of teaching. That teaching, by the way, is mainly of the English language.

The second issue is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, as the responsible agency with regard to the registration, accreditation, and monitoring of the industry, was very woeful indeed. That was the experience of those on the committee, and the answers that came from the authority to the committee in response to its questions, showed an inability to reply or a recollection that was faulty.

On behalf of the Hon Brian Donnelly, therefore, I say that New Zealand First does not give its support to this bill. We do give support to an international industry in education and learning that is industrious, and that provides a proper experience for students. In this country’s recent history, there have been many learning institutions that have been able to do just that. Contrary to what the Minister said earlier, this is nothing to do with where students come from. It is to do with the reputation—for which his ministry has been responsible—for maintaining international standards of learning. Those standards are not just for public institutions. They must be maintained also for those providers that exercise their wish to educate in a private role.

New Zealand First does not support this bill. Again, the real point of the matter is that the ministry and the Minister need to think again, and think urgently, because since this bill came to the House the problem has escalated. There is yet another agency about to go under, and the same scenario will be repeated there of a lack of attention to the detail of the provider, in its monitoring by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. We do not recommend the passing of this bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Having heard the submissions, and noting the changes to the bill made by the Education and Science Committee, I feel reasonably satisfied that the Greens’ initial concerns about it have been dealt with.

When the bill was introduced, we thought it contained some disturbingly draconian measures. At the time, in December, it was all a bit of a surprise. However, we have come to realise that disturbingly draconian measures in Government legislation have recently become a bit ho-hum. But I think it is very important to give some credit to the select committee, which got rid of the worst of the measures in the bill, particularly around the retrospective action of some of its provisions that would have required institutions in the industry to pay levies from 1 January this year, rather than from when the bill comes into effect.

When the export education levy was first proposed a number of years ago, my colleague Nandor Tanczos expressed considerable concern that it would be used for purposes not related to the provision of export education, and that concern remained with us during the progress of this bill. Increasingly schools are using the fees they gather from international students to pay for the education of their general population, because the Government funding is so pathetic that it completely fails to cover the basic costs for schools.

Government-forced dependence by schools on the fees from international students is a disgraceful legacy of this Government. But in the end, the bill restricts the use of the levy to those issues relating to international students only, and to their care and protection when the institutions to which they have paid their fees go bust. For that reason, the Greens will support the second reading of the bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party. We have opposed this bill all the way through. We worked hard in the Education and Science Committee to at least improve on the sloppy legislation that initially came before the committee.

For instance, one of the changes for the better that has been made is to the provision that the levy could be used to refund students in courses that were not even accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, which would have meant that any fly-by-night operator could set up, take the fees from students, and flee, and the taxpayer or the levy-payer would be left to pick up the charges. The other change that has been made by the select committee is the removal of the retrospective charges, which is also a positive thing. But it is still bad legislation.

It will allow the Minister of Education to tax private training establishments for the cost of refunding students for any pre-paid fees when a private training establishment cannot offer the course to the student. As we have heard from Pansy Wong, that is because of the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich Training Centre, which both collapsed. When Modern Age collapsed, the Minister announced on 8 September 2003, without even consulting the industry, that he would bail out the institution to the cost of $400,000, despite the fact that students already had insurance and other members of the sector voluntarily took those students under their wings. All the 500 students were put into classes within 2 weeks. The English language students went into classes within a week.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Nowhere to live and nothing to eat.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: The Minister knows that. He can sit there and have a little tanty as much as he likes, but he knows what the facts of the case are.

This legislation will tax responsible providers, which have absolutely no control over who enters the industry—that control is exerted by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education—to cover the cost of the irresponsible providers.

Why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority not check more thoroughly that Modern Age’s money was in fact in a safe bond? Why did it just take Modern Age’s word for it? The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has proved its incompetence on a whole range of fronts, and it will continue to be incompetent. The Minister will not have to take any responsibility for that, because he just loves to beat up any sort of private provider in the education sector.

The Government has bailed out public polytechs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Irresponsible polytechs have been bailed out by the Government, but it has never required other polytechs to cover the cost of those bail-outs. Where is the levy on public polytechs? What levy, under the export education levy, do they have to pay? The Minister has not levied public institutions, and he knows it. He calls “consultation” going to the industry after he has already made the decision that he will bail them out. The Association of Private Providers of English Language had offered to discuss it with the Minister, but he did not take that up.

This is very bad, sloppy legislation. It allows for double-dipping. For instance, the students who will be bailed out in the future will not have to register as creditors to the Government, which means that they could well be bailed out again and again. The other bad message that this legislation will send is that it will remove all responsibility to be good, responsible institutions from private providers who come into the industry. What is the point of being responsible when all the other institutions, through Government legislation, will be forced to pick up the tab if an institution lets its students down? The levy releases all those future shonky private training establishments from their responsibilities. As I said, the bill’s provisions mean that private providers will be paying the cost of failed businesses, and they will have absolutely no control over which institutions will come into the industry.

It is ideological legislation that has come about because this Government is vehemently opposed to any form of private provider in the education sector. The Minister has already proven that with early childhood education, when he unfairly slanted the fees against private providers in favour of community-owned providers. It was the Minister who called private early childhood educators “Kentucky Fried Childcare”. Why is he not honest and call tertiary institutions “Kentucky Fried Education”, too? He is more concerned about what happens when he goes to China and his reputation over there than how private education institutions in the tertiary sector will manage here. He wants to encourage growth in the New Zealand industry, but he is going the wrong way about it.

We oppose the bill.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. Right at the beginning, I want to say that United Future believes that there is actually no need for this bill and that therefore there is no need for it to proceed. Tonight I will touch on a couple of reasons for that view, and hopefully I will not go over the ground that others have touched on.

The legislation is based on some assumptions that could be challenged, or that are flawed, at their very bottom. The Minister has given some plausible reasons why this bill is required, yet, after the first reading, when I sat on the Education and Science Committee and listened intently to the submitters to find out what they had to say on the bill, it was pretty clear to me that not a single one of the submitters said yes to this bill coming forward in any shape or form. So I listened to the officials to see whether they had anything to say that would justify or vindicate the bill, and I am still in the same frame of mind. There is nothing that validates this bill being in our midst tonight.

In fact, I think some of the assumptions that lie behind this bill are so flawed that fixing something that flawed is really just a waste of time. It is a waste of time for all the submitters who came and offered their positions, their thoughts, and their reasons. It is a waste of time for the select committee to have gone through all that to no avail, and also in this House tonight. It could have been solved in yet another way.

One of the premises that I see in this bill is that the public sector providers are considered to be very safe whereas private providers are high risk. We in United Future promoted a minority view on this bill, because we were not at all convinced, when one took out certain clauses—clause 4(3) and clause 5, which came out under pressure, I believe, from the submitters—that there was any reason for this bill to exist. It decimated the very basis for this bill to exist and therefore we, as a party, will not be voting in favour of this particular reading.

The Government stated also that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—which has been accused by a number of speakers tonight, and which is a gatekeeper for all private training establishments—would be put on a much stronger basis and a more rigorous set of regulations, and that it would be strengthened in the future. The Government stated that it would ensure better quality control systems, that better auditing procedures would be available, and that an approved fees protection programme would be set up to overcome the weaknesses reflected in these cases that have been the basis for this bill. So I say, and United Future says, that if in fact the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is going to be strengthened to do all of this, then why do we need the bill, because, quite honestly, once the New Zealand Qualifications Authority gets up to speed, there is no need for all this, therefore further supporting our position that we are not in favour of this bill.

Again, as others have said, why should honest and good providers be punished when they have no say as to who comes into it? In fact, the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee—and I would like Parliament to understand they are not private training establishment people—stated: “It is a ludicrous suggestion that quality providers be financially responsible for less reputable providers that fail to take appropriate action to safeguard their financial viability. To suggest such a course of action in any other industry would be decried as reprehensible and going completely against the grain of good business practice.”

That was part of that committee’s submission, in a sense saying what we have been saying in this House tonight. This bill, by the way, was brought as a shock to the industry without any genuine form of consultation. The Minister and the ministry thought that they could just foist it on us and that we would all agree and go home feeling nice for agreeing. But the failure of two private training establishments, which was the basis of this panic bill, was a false premise. It reminds me very much of the adage: “One swallow does not a summer make.” One failure does not mean that all of the private training establishment sector is a failure. Therefore, there is a false premise for doing this.

I believe that the real reason the Minister panicked and the ministry forced this bill before the House tonight is simply to cover up for the incompetence, as others have made known, of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority itself. The Association of Private Providers of English Language stated in its submission: “Our opposition to the entire bill remains intact.” It says that the Paramount Institute situation, outlined in the Sunday Star-Times of June 13, raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the student fee protection policy and its enforcement by NZQA.

Now, this particular institution was not the basis for the bill, but subsequent to all the cuff and fluff about this, in June this year another organisation fell over because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority did not enforce things correctly. The submission went on to state: “We have and will continue to work with NZQA on improving an enforcement of that policy, but we do not see any way in which we can directly manage the risk of PTE closures. The Government, through NZQA, controls entry to, and exit from, the PTE sector, and our members cannot see why they should bear the risk of NZQA’s decision.” That submission underlines what a lot of others have said, which is that this bill is just a cover up for an incompetent New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and possibly, on the side, also for the tertiary education sector. For instance, no responsible action has been taken against the directors of Modern Age, and I believe that the Government was trying to cover up for that.

What are the solutions? I believe that we should abandon this bill tonight. The Minister should look at alternative arrangements such as insurance programmes, bonding regimes, something like the International Air Transport Association has for the airlines; possibly change the visa regulations and adopt the Australian measures on how to handle overseas students, tighten up the regulations for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when private training establishments and others are trading insolvently, and stop further division and antagonism, which I believe the levies have caused every provider in this country, be they universities, polytechnics, or private training establishments. Also, the Government and the Minister should be working in a supportive manner with all providers to encourage all of them to strive for excellence in education in this country.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Is it not an indictment when Labour has to rely on the discredited Greens as the sole party that wants to support this discredited legislation? Surely the Government should take on board that the parties that sat on the select committee and heard the evidence have drawn the conclusion, and the fault lies with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

This bill really is an old-fashioned statist solution. When we run out of ideas, just impose another round of costs on the private sector. All that does is excuse a lazy and not well organised New Zealand Qualifications Authority from proper supervision. Some would say it is incompetent, and in fact there is considerable evidence of that. The Sunday Star-Times article of 15 June refers to the fact that 1 year earlier the New Zealand Qualifications Authority had been advised of problems facing an English language school, and it did nothing. When the debt reached $200,000 it knew there was a problem but it did nothing, until another $800,000 of debts had accumulated. Only then did the authority act, and apparently only on the advice of the police. The very institution that has been established by this Parliament to provide the prudential supervision failed in this particular case. It failed in respect of the Paramount Institute. This legislation reflects the lazy answer that excuses the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and imposes costs on the private sector.

Everyone would acknowledge that there have been difficulties amongst various private institutions, and they have damaged the sector’s reputation internationally. There was a need for a solution. The solution does not lie in getting the successful institutions to bail out the bad. We heard a variety of solutions in the select committee. One solution for instance—and there were several suggestions—was compulsory insurance. We were told by the Insurance Council that such insurance is available. That is the first particular option.

Proper accreditation would have been the second step. Of course, that would have required the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—that fine august body—to perform and do the work. I guess that was not an option that the Government would look at because it would have required a serious and sharp review of the organisation. The third option was to have not just an initial accreditation but proper prudential supervision of the institutions as they continue their work. A fourth option was to put at least a significant proportion of student fees into trust accounts.

All of those options would fundamentally have been private sector options. It would not have involved the successful private training establishments having to bail out the unsuccessful institutions. Those were the real choices facing the Government. Those were the choices requested by the private sector itself, and it made that very clear in its submissions.

We have only to think of perhaps one of the most successful Government institutions to find the model. For instance, imagine banks were required to bail out failed banks. What would that say about the Reserve Bank? It would say that there was no proper supervision, no proper accreditation, and no proper analysis of capital adequacy ratios. All those things would reflect badly on the Reserve Bank. In fact, the Reserve Bank does an excellent job of supervision. Surely that was the model that the Government should have followed. It could have said to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority: “Look at the successful institutions, learn from them, and then impose those solutions on the private sector, with the agreement of the private sector.” Those were the choices out there. Instead, this legislation is the lazy way out.

As I said in my opening comments, this is the statist solution. I am not surprised that the Green Party immediately responded and said: “Statist solution, the answer must be yes.”, because that is always the Greens solution. So we have a left-wing Government looking to a more left-wing partner as the model for governing our country. One would think that in 2004 there would have been lessons learnt, and that the old statist solutions that come out of socialism would have been abandoned. In fact, even if the Government had listened to its erstwhile coalition partner it may have gone for a more moderate solution. And when I say erstwhile coalition partner, in this room there seems to be at least two others—United and, dare I say it, New Zealand First. Both those parties—[Interruption] Is it not an interesting concept that New Zealand First members are denying that they want to prop up the Government? I sat on a select committee all last week, listening to New Zealand First members propping up the Government on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. They need to understand that generally they do support the Government. They will be judged in a year’s time.

The lessons were clear. Listen to the private sector, listen to the members of the Education and Science Committee who heard the evidence, and take note of them. What on earth is the point of having submissions, and having thoughtful select committee members analysing those submissions and reporting back to the Parliament, saying that this bill does not work? If the select committee process meant something, and I would like to think it does, one would expect the Government to say: “Gosh, we really have got this one wrong. We need to go back to first base and review it again.” But no, Mr Mallard, with all his arrogance and his “he knows best” will just continue to impose his flawed and failed solutions on education.

I want to conclude on this point. It will not work for the private training establishments, it will not work for the compulsory sector, and it does not work for the State-owned tertiary sector. I predict that the public will make its judgment in 12 months’ time that the Minister failed. Some of them will remember that this bill was one of the first signals of failure.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right, appropriate, and proper that reference be made to matters that are before another committee of the House, which has not yet reported, and made expressly in the way in which Dr Mapp covered in his speech? He could only have been referring to one such committee. If that is the correct interpretation, I would ask him to withdraw the serious allegation that was made about New Zealand First.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, the speaker was not out of order. It would have been out of order if the committee meeting in question was held in private. I do not believe it was.

Jim Peters: It was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, that is not a point of order. It was quite in order for the speaker to say what he said.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order I wish to raise is that Dr Mapp, in the course of his speech, stated that New Zealand First supported the Government with regard to a committee meeting in another place in this Parliament. That allegation is not correct, and could not be correct.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, that is not a point of order. The member may take a call and counter the statement, or whatever, but it is not a point of order.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 4.

Bill read a second time.

Voting

Correction

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It has been brought to my notice that there needs to be a correction to a vote taken in Committee on the Fisheries Amendment Bill ( No 4). The result of the closure on clause 68 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 75, Noes 21. The correct result is Ayes 75, Noes 41.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.