Thursday, 26 August 2004

Thursday, 26 August 2004

Thursday, 26 August 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House, priority will be given to the first reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the remaining stages of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), the Maori Fisheries Bill, and the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National): Could the Leader of the House indicate whether, during the remaining 3 weeks of this 4-week session, he intends to attempt to move the House into urgency for any matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): No. The member’s leader is free to carry on normally.

Points of Order

Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)—Referral of Supplementary Order Paper 246

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move member’s notice of motion No. 3, in my name, without debate.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Roading—Transport Congestion

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: When he said yesterday, in relation to reducing roading congestion, that “we can’t simply motorway our way out of trouble”, what did he mean?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport): I meant that we need a balanced approach, one in which better roading sits alongside better public transport and demand management. Motorways alone will not work, and that is why this Government is spending record sums on public transport and traffic demand management.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How convincing does he find the Allen report to the Automobile Association, given its failure to take into account the economic effects of oil depletion and rising fuel prices and its use of an economic model that assumes that, if necessary, people can fill up their cars with coal, electricity, or gas?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yesterday the Government welcomed that report as a useful contribution to the debate. It does have a number of contestable issues in it, and the member has alerted the House to some of them. My reading of the report is that it has, in fact, done two useful things. One of them is that it has identified precisely the years in which the infrastructure deficit arose as being those years when the National Party was in Government. I might say that, in respect of a funding response, the report probably underestimated the level of expenditure because it probably underplayed the role of public transport and rail freight.

Helen Duncan: Can the Minister tell the House, when he said that “we can’t simply motorway our way out of trouble”, how we got into trouble in the first place?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer is, of course, the National Party. Yesterday’s report precisely identifies and quantifies the years during the 1990s when we stopped investing adequately in infrastructure. That is what got us into trouble; this Government is getting us out of trouble.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that our roading infrastructure is seriously lagging behind what is required from the point of view of traffic movement, which in turn leads to major economic disadvantage, safety problems, and, further, slow-moving vehicles causing environmental problems; and, if he does recognise that, will he adopt the Allen report solutions so that the huge benefits of an adequate roading infrastructure will flow through our economy to the advantage of us all?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I acknowledge a land transport infrastructure deficit, including, but not limited to, roads. I think that the Allen report, as I said in response to a question from Jeanette Fitzsimons, has probably underestimated the level of expenditure that is needed. It has certainly underestimated the level of expenditure that this Government intends. I might say that we would be in even worse trouble had the New Zealand First Party, when it was briefly in coalition with National, not shifted 3.2c from the consolidated account into roading, which is something that the National leader subsequently decided he would try to take credit for.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Does the Minister accept the finding of the Allen Consulting Group report that the construction of rural passing lanes has a cost-benefit ratio of 4:1; if he does, will he advocate that they be prioritised for construction?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As is often the case with reports of that ilk, they overlook what is already happening. Transit New Zealand has announced a 10-year plan for State highway development. In the year we currently find ourselves, Transit is building passing lanes—and I speak from memory here—at the rate of approximately one every 9 days.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister agree with this statement from the Allen report: “It is difficult to overstate the economic and social importance of New Zealand’s road network. It plays a significantly bigger role than other transport modes, and connects them all. It permeates all aspects of economic and social activity.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, more or less.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What contribution to New Zealand’s transport future, and to congestion relief in Auckland, was made by the 1993 National Party decision to sell rail?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may answer, in so far as the question relates to his portfolio.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It certainly does, Mr Speaker. It was a particularly negative contribution, a particularly silly privatisation, and a particularly thoughtless, incomprehensible privatisation that should never have happened. This Government got up and got the track back for a dollar.

Peter Brown: I ask for clarification: is the Minister aware of any other area of investment for Government funding that will produce superior returns to those outlined in the Allen report?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The question ranges way outside the variety of portfolios I happen to hold. I wonder how education would fit alongside transport, but I am afraid I am not able to give an opinion.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister agree with the Allen report where it clearly demonstrates that tax spent on road construction is an investment with significant returns for the economy; if he does, will he seek to reduce the amount diverted from the National Land Transport Fund to the Crown account, as advocated constantly by United Future?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may not be aware, so I remind him and the House, that this year expenditure on land transport has gone up by 18 percent. Not only that but we have said what the expenditure will be out to the years 2013 and 2014, by which time we will be spending approximately $2.8 billion a year on land transport infrastructure—much more than twice the level of expenditure when we came to office.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that the Minister really addressed the part of the question that related to the diversion of funds from excise duty into the Crown account.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister might like to comment briefly.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a matter of fact that when the Government increased petrol tax in, I think, April 2002, all that money—every cent—went into roading. When legislation comes before this House again to raise petrol tax by 5c effective from 1 April next year, every cent of that will go into roading. I think the real question is whether the National Party will vote for that legislation, because those members said yesterday that it was time to stop talking and start doing something, but I bet they will vote against that tax.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree with the approach of Allen Consultants that the large environmental costs of a huge motorway programme should not be counted because one cannot put a dollar value on them, and do environmental costs not also cause economic costs down the track?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I cannot remember quite how the issue was phrased but, no, I do not agree with that part of the report; and, yes, I do agree with the member. I go on to say that the Allen report’s analysis of carbon dioxide emissions was fairly faulty, as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister whether the motherhood and apple pie, 1½ page agreement between United Future and the Government has even one word on road transport funding; if not, why is the Government refusing to designate the harbour link to the biggest and most profitable port in this country, Tauranga, as a State or national road and designate the money collected until this point in time by road users for that purpose?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am very recently advised that the document does refer to alternative mechanisms of funding for land transport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister how it was that the harbour link to the biggest and most profitable port in this country, which is a vital economic infrastructural investment in this country, is not funded—

Hon Bill English: What is the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that I want an answer, and if Mr English would keep quiet, I will make my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will have his point of order heard in silence. There are two people who have offended.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked a question with regard to the funding of the harbour link to the Port of Tauranga. It was very clear what I asked, which was why the money collected for the purpose of the New Zealand road user was not spent on such roads. I want an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did not ask that question. He asked whether there was any comment in the 1½ page United Future - Labour agreement from the coalition about transport. I heard him quite clearly ask that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hansard will show you clearly did not. I asked whether there was any reference to road transport funding from taxation with regard to the United Future document, and, if not, what was he supposed to do in respect of the harbour link to the Port of Tauranga. So it is very clear what the Hansard will show, and I want an answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER: Members can ask one question. If there are two limbs, Ministers are not obliged to respond to both limbs. That is a risk members run in asking multiple questions. The Minister certainly replied to the first half of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to abide by that as being the new ruling—

Mr SPEAKER: It is not a new rule. It has existed since at least 1966.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am very happy to abide by its new application, because I have heard members ask up to three questions. You have usually ruled out the last one, but not the first two, where they are related. I suggest to you that if this is to be the rule, then frankly it will be very, very tough on Opposition members in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not, because the Minister chose to give an answer. He did address the question. That is the end of the matter.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that the modified Auckland eastern highway plan announced yesterday offers the worst of all worlds, in that it has no public transport component and will create big traffic jams when cars coming into the city merge into one lane as they enter Hobson Bay?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not make personal comments on individual projects, and neither have Ministers of Transport before me; nor will, I am sure, Ministers of Transport yet to be born.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, when the Government is taking $1 for the consolidated account from every $2 collected for the purpose of road construction, maintenance, repair, and road safety, is the Government not moving to ensure that the harbour link to the Port of Tauranga—the biggest port in New Zealand—is a State or national road funded from those same funds?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The fact of the matter is that since the Government came into office, an increasing proportion—and it is about to increase further—of all petrol excise duties has been made over to land transport infrastructure; more than ever was the case prior.

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked the Minister about Tauranga specifically. I think he can answer that part of the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not intend to comment on individual projects. Ministers of Transport before me have not; neither, I suggest, will Ministers of Transport yet to be born.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is not the main failing of the Allen report the lack of any comparison between the economic return from new roads and the long-term economic return from travel demand management, public transport, and rail development?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I hope that by now I have left the member with the view that I consider the Allen report to be a useful contribution to the land transport debate. I think it is. It is not, however, a document with a level of sophistication that I think is sufficient for investment decisions to be made, and I suspect that the land transport agencies, such as Transfund, would agree.

Refugees—Immigration, Minister

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration’s handling of the refugee issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister—whilst the Minister wipes his brow—what regard, if any at all, has been paid by the Minister to the briefing paper given in August 2002 on the issue of immigration and refugees, and their dislocation and non-placement in our economy; if he has not paid regard to it, how come he still has the job?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Quite a lot of regard is being given to exactly those issues in this term of Parliament. The Minister was able to announce, in connection with this year’s Budget, a package of $62 million over 4 years to deal with migrant settlement issues, and in the previous year the Minister for Social Development and Employment had another $21 billion put into his department over 4 years to deal precisely with specialist services providing migrants and refugees with placement in employment.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that, under her watch, 90 percent of refugees welcomed to this country are still on a benefit after 2 years, and that, after 5 long years of the Labour Government, 80 percent of refugees are still on a benefit?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am satisfied that we are putting in place services to deal with those problems that have never been in place before. I am also satisfied that among the refugee community are simply outstanding examples of people who want to get ahead. For example, a young Kurdish man who came here as a refugee was this week reported in the New Zealand Herald as having been awarded the Simpson Grierson employment law prize for topping his class. There are plenty of other such stories.

Keith Locke: How is New Zealand’s international reputation affected by two parties scrapping over which can be the most mean-spirited to the world’s most desperate people, and rather than taking—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have said every member has the right to ask his or her question in silence. People might not agree with it, but this is a democracy, and everyone has that right.

Keith Locke: How is New Zealand’s international reputation affected by two parties scrapping over which can be the most mean-spirited towards the world’s most desperate people; and, rather than taking fewer refugees, as National and New Zealand First propose, should we not be taking—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Roger Sowry will leave the Chamber. I will judge that; of course there is no responsibility, and I am going to rule in that way, but I told him not to interject.

Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Our Standing Orders require that any questions made to Ministers not include any arguments, references, imputations, epithets, or ironic expressions that may be negative to other members of the House. Quite clearly, that question breached that Standing Order.

Mr SPEAKER: I was about to rule in that way, and I was going to rule the question out of order. I have not yet heard one word that was in order—and the member has had two goes. I am moving on to the next supplementary question. [Interruption] No, the member has had two goes.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was interrupted a couple of times in presenting my question. Surely I should have the courtesy of at least finishing it, because I do have a direct question to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the member is too late. I gave him a second opportunity and tried to say to him that he should make the question in order. I am very generous indeed in this area, and I gave him a second go. Of course, I asked a member to leave the Chamber because of his interjections while the member was asking his question. But the question is not yet in order.

Rod Donald: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have made a reference to a member over on that side of the Chamber about the content of Mr Locke’s question, but you never actually directly said to him that you were unsatisfied with it. So, before you have even given him the chance to rephrase it, you have ruled him out from asking the question. I think you should let him have a chance to ask a question that is within the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: I was very generous earlier this week to another party. I will let Mr Locke have a final go, but he must ask a question that is only in relation to the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Keith Locke: Should we not be increasing the number of refugees, rather than reducing them, particularly in view of the fact that the total number of refugees we accepted last year—that is, the quota refugees plus the asylum seekers—was only 821?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think we would want to see better results than we are getting at the moment, and have had for many years, in terms of settlement, before we increased the numbers. But I note that the previous Leader of the Opposition made exactly that point a year or so ago, when he said that he would be prepared to consider the quota being raised if resources were in place—a very different line from that taken by his front-bench colleague Mr Ryall this week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received reports suggesting that when New Zealand First warned of the failure of this refugee and immigration policy it was accused by the National Party of xenophobia; and has she received any further report that might suggest we could look forward to the day when “New Zealand Second” stops stealing New Zealand First’s policies?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That would be like asking to take the politics out of politics. But I do agree with the member that there appears to have been a marked change in the National Party’s attitude. I personally found its previous leader’s attitude on refugee issues much more enlightened than the drivel that came from Mr Ryall last week.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have, as you are entitled to do, shown great leniency to Mr Locke in relation to his supplementary question. In the circumstances, I invite you to consider showing a similar spirit of generosity to Mr Sowry and inviting him to rejoin us in the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Because it is Thursday I think that is a fair comment. I will.

Government Members: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: That does not mean that others will not be asked to leave. I go only so far.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Cambridge High School

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s statement that with regard to NCEA assessment practices at Cambridge High School, “There is no evidence that the issues identified at the school by NZQA are happening at other schools.”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Education): Yes, because that is the advice I have received from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. This was an extreme case, and it showed a distinct lack of professionalism. I am confident that the vast majority of New Zealand teachers operate in a very professional manner.

Hon Bill English: Why can the Minister rely on statements made by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when media reports today demonstrate that the authority was investigating evidence of exactly the same sorts of practices as those shown at Cambridge High School at another school, probably at the time that the authority made that statement?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that—and I imagine the member is referring to a particular school reported in the New Zealand Herald, which named it as Hauraki Plains College—the situation at the school, as reported in the New Zealand Herald, is an example of how schools should deal with the problems. As soon as the school became aware of the potentially inadequate assessment activities it put student results on hold, it identified problems with its policy and modified the policy, and it asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to evaluate and confirm the changes made in the policy.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Why is the National Certificate of Educational Achievement NCEA) a better system for the student?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The NCEA gives students, teachers, and employers a very detailed picture of how students are performing in each subject, unlike the old School Certificate system, which automatically consigned 50 percent of the students to failure and 50 percent to success, regardless of their actual standard of work. When students achieve in an area of learning we will now know exactly what skills they possess, not just that they did better or worse than the average. For instance, a builder looking for an apprentice will see whether a student can actually do geometry. That level of detail was not possible under School Certificate, which just gave an overall mark.

Jim Peters: Is not the issue with regard to current NCEA practices one that was created after 1999 by the Ministry of Education amalgamating achievement and unit standards—two totally different historical achievement strands in secondary education—and when will the Minister move to reform the practices that are inherent in the current NCEA?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member who asked that question is an expert in this area and knows the history. He has correctly described some of what has gone on. However, I say to that member that today we have a standards-based system that is a distinct improvement on a mere ranking system, and as the principals themselves say, the system meets their needs and provides better motivation for academic success than in the past. As with the implementation of any system of this size, there will be bedding-down problems. Those problems will be sorted out, and we will be left with a better system. The issue is about improving the system, not changing it entirely.

Deborah Coddington: Will the Minister conduct a nationwide review of NCEA procedures and policies, as requested more than 2 months ago by more than 20 State school principals who were so desperate and so concerned that they took out a newspaper advertisement about the NCEA’s credibility; if not, why is he just arrogantly ignoring the very people who are responsible for educating young New Zealanders?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can really do better than to take the words of the Principals Council, which recently noted that—and I will paraphrase what it had to say—although there will be problems, we should always be on the look-out for situations and deal with them when they arise, but, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, we should use examples like Cambridge High School to allow us to get proper processes in all schools. That is the best approach—to look at the system when issues like that arise, to learn from them, and to move on in a good system.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister at all disturbed that it took a letter from a student to an education magazine to raise concerns about Cambridge High School’s assessment practices, when the school has produced artificially high results over the last 2 years; if so, will he finally ask some hard questions of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—an organisation that has bungled the implementation of the NCEA from the very beginning?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can assure the member that the Minister of Education always asks hard questions of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. However, we are dealing here with a situation where a school is regularly reviewed. In the case of Cambridge High School, it appears that that school hid some of the activities that were going on in the school. As soon as those activities became apparent to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—not through a letter, but through other means—it went back to the school, which is now under the control of two statutory managers. It cannot be more controlled than that.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell me how the New Zealand Qualifications Authority could have investigated assessment practices at Hauraki Plains College when the activity workbooks and assessment workbooks in question are in the box I have here?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As a former university lecturer I always approve of people using visual aids to illustrate their point, so I thank the member for that. [Interruption] It is an aspect that the member himself states has disappeared. All I can say to the member is that I am assured by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that this matter was dealt with appropriately. The authority was invited into the school, and has dealt with the matter in the appropriate fashion.

Hon Bill English: Will the Minister go back to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and ask it how it investigated assessment practices at Hauraki Plains College, when the scripts that I have here show many students gave exactly the same answers to questions, show 6th form students earned 3 credits in a matter of 3 or 4 days, and show students probably signed each other’s assessments, rather than teachers doing that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I assure the member that, of course, every claim made by him and with evidence to support it will be investigated thoroughly by myself, and I will ensure that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority follows up on those issues thoroughly. But I say the system of a standards-based assessment is vastly better than a ranking system such as School Certificate, which allowed so many National Party people to get through their qualifications.

Hon Bill English: What are the thousands of students, parents, and teachers to make of statements by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in the New Zealand Herald today that it has investigated the problems at Hauraki Plains College, when the authority could not have seen the evidence of bad assessment practice because that was not available to it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I take the claims of the member seriously. I am sure he is an honourable member. If he has those claims to make and evidence to back them up, then I am always willing to look at the issues raised by him.

International Reputation—Criticism in Australia

4. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What are the risks to New Zealand’s international reputation of any criticisms of New Zealand in Australia?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): There was a risk that New Zealand’s reputation might have been damaged, and investor confidence diminished, by Dr Brash bagging his own country to the business community in Australia last week. However, as business reporter Bob Edlin wrote in the Independent this week: “The more Brash says, the more likely he is to expose his humbug, and the more humbug he exposes, the less likely he is to displace the Clark government.” In that sense the risk and the damage done was more to the National Party in New Zealand than it was to New Zealand’s reputation overseas.

Hon Mark Gosche: Was New Zealand’s reputation with the Australian business community damaged by the argument that our labour laws, and the proposal for 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave, made New Zealand unable to compete with Australia?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, the Australian business community must have regarded Dr Brash’s attempt to undermine his own country in that regard as simply farcical. They would know, as apparently Dr Brash does not, that Australia has had 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave for 30 years, and that the World Bank has put New Zealand ahead of Australia in terms of the flexibility of its labour laws.

Simon Power: What effects does he think references to a paralysis in the process of New Zealand government, warnings of social distress, and gloomy predictions of fear and insecurity have on foreign business groups that might consider investing in New Zealand, and has he received any reports on the ongoing effects on New Zealand’s international reputation of those statements made by Helen Clark, the then Leader of the Opposition, in Hong Kong?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Obviously, those comments accurately described New Zealand’s plight in the 1990s. Clearly, the international community has seen that this country has done better than practically any other OECD country under 5 years of extremely good Labour Government – led policies.

Hon Mark Gosche: What evidence is there of New Zealand about to decline into becoming just another Pacific Island State?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is, of course, no evidence to support Dr Brash’s attempt to belittle New Zealand in that way. As John Armstrong wrote in the Otago Daily Times, this “not only bordered on the ridiculous, it was silly politics to boot.” The National Bank regional trend survey recently issued shows our annualised June economic growth at 4.3 percent, which is one of the best in the OECD. The unemployment rate at 4 percent is the second-best rate in the OECD, and Transparency International has consistently found that in terms of good governance and lack of corruption New Zealand is one of the top three countries in the world. Nothing that Don Brash has said to bag New Zealand denies those facts.

Simon Power: I seek leave to table a speech by the Rt Hon. Helen Clark to the New Zealand Hong Kong Business Association in 1994 bagging New Zealand off shore.

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

Jill Pettis: Go and have a literacy test.

Simon Power: Go and get a speech lesson.

Mr SPEAKER: That is in direct reference to me. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise. She is a senior whip and should know better.

Jill Pettis: I do apologise, Mr Speaker.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Cambridge High School

5. DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) to the Minister of Education: Was it his intention that any school would achieve a 100 percent pass rate in NCEA; if not, why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority not investigate this at Cambridge High School until credit-cramming practices were reported in the media?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Education): There is no set pass rate, and students are expected to achieve at the level they are capable of. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority regularly visits schools, and visited Cambridge High School in 2003, but the school did not disclose the existence of its achievement recovery room, as the authority would have expected from a school that was operating professionally and with integrity. As soon as the New Zealand Qualifications Authority became aware of the issues at the school around the same time as the media, it moved to investigate, and subsequently issued a compliance notice telling the school to stop the use of its achievement recovery room. Two statutory managers are now working in the school alongside the board.

Donna Awatere Huata: Can the Minister recall the Minister of Education assuring this House and the select committee that systems he had in place, including moderation, a higher level of external exams, and visiting inspectors, would ensure that the kinds of practices now being revealed could not happen, and does the minister now regret foisting on New Zealand an untried and untested exam system that has been rejected by overseas countries and rejected by 80 percent of Post Primary Teachers Association teachers; if not, can he explain himself?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I assume that the Minister still assumes that giving that advice was the right thing to do. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exam is something that he does not regret introducing. It is a system that ensures we gain information about the real learning of students. We know what they achieve and to what level, and that will serve this country in the 21st century a whole lot better than an exam system that allowed 50 percent though and 50 percent to fail and meant that we never knew what they knew, at all.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister clarify for the benefit of members of the House how schools are monitored for the quality of NCEA results and reporting?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Schools are visited regularly by school relationship managers, who work closely with the schools to ensure consistency of standards. There is also regular moderation of internal assessment. Moderation means that results in one school are checked with other schools’ results so that a consistent national standard is maintained. This new approach means there is actually more national consistency of standards than there was under the old School Certificate, Sixth Form Certificate, and bursary system. The quality of the NCEA system is backed by the Principals Council chairperson, Don McLeod, who said: “NCEA can provide far richer diagnostic assessment information than the old School Certificate system could, and still mark the level of achievement of any given student so that employers can see what they have in front of them in a job application.”

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority report into Cambridge High School says that the credit recovery room had been operating for 2 years, and is he aware that during that time the school would have received probably over a dozen visits from various educational agencies, and what does that say about their competence?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I am afraid, answering on behalf of the Minister, I cannot confirm the exact details of the number of visits but I do know there were visits and I do know that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has made it clear that this particular activity within the school was actively hidden from it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not true that under a standards-based assessment system it is theoretically possible and ideally desirable for all schools to have 100 percent pass rates and that the issue is not about percentage pass rates but about the number of breaches of the law that had to occur to enable Bill English to have those scripts in this House today?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm the first part. A standards-based system is, of course, one where we would hope that people achieve standards, and if they get to 100 percent, then that would be a sign of the system working as well as any other sign within the system. On the second part of the question, yes I am looking forward to Mr English bringing his evidence to me. He makes a lot of claims here, and I am looking forward to seeing that evidence so I can find out how it was gained, what it says, and whether he has acted in a right and proper fashion.

Police—Staffing

6. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Police: Does he consider the current resources and staffing levels of both sworn and non-sworn police to be adequate; if so, why?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): Generally, yes. We are funding over a billion dollars a year into policing, we are providing more staff and more and better resources, and the results say it all. Today the police commissioner announced the crime figures for the year ended June 2004. He said: “The drop in recorded crime this year equates to a decline in the crime rate of 6.5 percent per 10,000 head of population.” He also said: “The continuing increase in the rate of resolved crime is also most encouraging, with the highest resolution rate—45.1 percent—in 20 years.” If we compare that result with what happened under National, which put money into a computer that did not work, cut staff numbers, and cut the police budget, we see we are doing a helluva lot better.

Lynne Pillay: Has there been a turn-round in the rate of crime in the most populated area of the country?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. I again quote from the police commissioner: “The three Auckland districts’ results reflect a major turn-around in the battle against crime in the most populated region of the country, and reflect good work in the past year. It also reflects the effort of making changes over the last 5 years.” For example, in Counties-Manukau the crime rate has dropped 16.5 percent—the biggest drop in the country—in Auckland City the crime rate has dropped 11.8 percent, and in North Shore - Waitakere the crime rate has fallen 5.3 percent. That is good news from a good Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not a fact that if the Minister actually read the statistics that the police commissioner tabled today, he would know that petty crime has fallen because New Zealanders know the police do not respond to their concerns in that respect, and that under his stewardship of 5 years there has been, in fact, more crime, more violence, and more drug crimes than at any other time?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: One of the reasons why National never got on top of crime was that it had that sort of attitude. This Government is driving the rate of crime down. We are the most successful Government in a long while. The rate of crime is down to the level it was at the beginning of the 1980s—way back to 1983. It has never been lower since that time. That member knows it, and I think he is a bit jealous.

Dr Muriel Newman: What is his response to the claims made in the latest Police News that police numbers in Auckland have increased by only 1 percent over the last 4 years, while the population has grown by 9 percent, and that “Sworn police numbers are failing to keep pace with the city’s growth.”?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The results show it all. Those comments are not correct, and I think the Police Association intends correcting the matter in the next issue.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister think it is a good thing or a bad thing that methamphetamine convictions have increased because the police are de-emphasising cannabis offences, as suggested by the crime statistics released by the police today; and does he agree that the police are taking a sensible lead on this issue while this Parliament does nothing?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That is a very unusual interpretation of what the crime statistics say. I do not know why the member thinks that. I think the fewer people smoking marijuana and the fewer using methamphetamine, the better. The police are really getting on top of it because they are being well resourced and, of course, supported by this Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why will this Government not tell the people of New Zealand that in the past year, under this Minister’s stewardship, there has been an almost 30 percent increase in methamphetamine-related crime, which has gone hand in glove with increases in grievous assaults and serious assaults?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That member must realise that when one focuses on methamphetamine, when one puts more pressure on, the better the results and the greater the number of people caught. National would interpret the figures as meaning that the less one does, the better the result. We do not.

Primary Health Organisations—Funding

7. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Health: When she stated to the House on 24 August 2004, in relation to interim-funded primary health organisations, that: “After all, the Government has not put any additional money in for them,” what did she mean?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): My comment referred to the fact that for interim-funded primary health organisations, additional funding to reduce fees is being phased in over time. Currently, interim primary health organisations are funded for children under 18 and people aged 65 and over. As yet, no additional funding is provided for the remaining age groups enrolled in interim-funded primary health organisations. This means that people from the ages of 18 to 64 who are enrolled in an interim-funded primary health organisation pay the full fee charged by their general practitioner, unless they have acommunity services card, a high use health card, or are part of Care Plus.

Judith Collins: When the Minister refers to “additional funding” is that funding in addition to the $4 million allocated to establish primary health organisations in preference to family general practitioners, is it in addition to the additional funding she trumpeted, on 1 October 2003, that interim primary health organisations would receive, or is it in addition to her $2 million advertising spree on the virtues of primary health organisations?

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked three questions. The Minister may respond to two.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is wrong. We have not spent $411 million establishing primary health organisations. We have put money in that goes to the patient—very little of it is used to establish primary health organisations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made this point at the very beginning of question time today when you gave the ruling. You just said, with regard to the last questioner, that she had asked three questions and the Minister can answer two. You see my point, do you not?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may answer. I did not say she must answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I see.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to clarify something with the Minister. Did she say $410 million? Because I said $4 million.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I thought the member said $411 million.

Judith Collins: No, I said $4 million.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Perhaps she would like to repeat the question because I heard $411 million.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I heard the question from the member and she definitely said $4 million. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on the fact that the figure was $4 million, because I heard that figure.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The extra additional money has not yet gone in for people who are in interim primary health organisations. That money has gone in for only the over-65s and that figure was $47 million. There has been no additional money for interim primary health organisations in the age groups that are not yet funded.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister received any comments that allege a 20 percent fee increase in the primary health organisation in Feilding?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. Judith Collins made allegations in the House 2 days ago. She has failed to produce the evidence that there has been a 20 percent increase in the primary health organisation in Feilding, because there is no primary health organisation in Feilding. She can be excused for being confused. After all, very recently she called primary health organisations “public health organisations”.

Sue Kedgley: Given the Government’s stated intention that primary health organisations would comprise “multidisciplinary teams of health professionals working together to deliver a range of health services”, will the Government encourage primary health organisations to include registered complementary health practitioners in their multidisciplinary teams; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is absolutely nothing to stop registered complementary health practitioners from being part of primary health organisations. I have no doubt that over time we will see the integration of many more health providers in primary health organisations.

Heather Roy: If, as the Minister says, the Government has not put additional money into interim public health organisations, and given that doctors around the country are reporting that half the primary health organisation administration money is being used to run their new governance boards, can she deny that she has forced doctors to increase fees in order to produce the same service, thus imposing more expensive doctors’ visits on the millions of Kiwis enrolled in interim primary health organisations?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. In fact, over 2 million New Zealanders have cheaper health care.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister accept that ordinary New Zealanders might find her use of the term “no additional funding” confusing, when she previously stated in a press release on 1 October 2003 that additional funding was available to interim primary health organisations for certain services that most New Zealanders would consider standard medical practice, like the promotion of health?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Every primary health organisation, whether access or interim, receives a very small amount of money for health promotion and disease prevention—a very small amount. There has been no additional money put into interim primary health organisations for the age groups between 18 and 64. However, help is on the way, because this Government between now and 2007 will be putting in additional funding to ensure that every New Zealander will have affordable primary health care. Let me compare that with the fact that subsidised primary health care was removed by the National Party in 1991.

Electricity—Foreign Ownership

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have any concerns regarding foreign ownership of New Zealand’s electricity distribution and provision?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): My primary concern is any lack of investment in electricity distribution and provision, rather than the ownership thereof being outside the Government sector.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the sale of key New Zealand electricity infrastructure possibly be in the national interest, when we have State-owned Meridian Energy calling for urgency in the upgrade of transmission and distribution lines at the same time as line companies are being sold off to foreigners—whose concern, as we all well know from experience, is profit and not New Zealand’s long-term energy needs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The aim of any company in the New Zealand electricity business is to make a profit. Indeed, I think that would be a requirement of it under the Companies Act.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Minister’s view that it is sound economics for a company like Powerco, which has gone from a profit of $2 million a year to almost $20 million a year, to be taken from the ownership of the people of Taranaki and put in the hands of Australians; and what possible benefit can that have for the people of New Zealand, particularly the people of Tauranga, who have just had two power cuts while Powerco was very busy trying to sell itself rather than running a proper business?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, the matter of any change in ownership of Powerco is likely to come before me for approval, under the Overseas Investment Act. Therefore, I am not prepared to comment further at this point.

Prisoners—Human Rights

9. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree that imprisonment, and further disciplinary action that occurs within prison, is a justified limitation on human rights?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): Yes. Imprisonment, by its very nature, is a limitation on the rights ordinarily enjoyed by citizens. It is justifiable both as a protection for the safety of society and a punishment for serious offences committed by offenders against others. The nature of imprisonment and disciplinary action must, however, be lawful and meet the standards set out in the legislation passed by this House.

Marc Alexander: Why does the law allow a prison inmate like Christopher Taunoa to be compensated by a $240,000 payout because his human rights were supposedly temporarily breached in prison, when he permanently severed the human rights of his victim with an ear-to-ear, foot-long cut to his victim’s throat—so deep it went through to his spinal cord?

Hon PHIL GOFF: As the judge has not ruled on claims for compensation, it is premature, and in any case inappropriate, to speculate on his likely decision. However, I can quote from the Dominion Post this morning, which reported the judge himself as suggesting that: “… an earlier court declaration that the prisoners’ rights under the Bill of Rights Act had been breached was enough in itself.”

Nanaia Mahuta: In the case taken to the High Court against the detention of inmates on the behaviour modification regime, did the judge find that the regime involved a serious breach of human rights involving torture and severe mental suffering, as had been alleged?

Hon PHIL GOFF: That certainly had been alleged by the inmates themselves and their counsel, but Justice Young rejected any breach of section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as having occurred. He did not uphold any specific allegations that the conditions amounted to psychological torture or cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment. He said there had been no credible evidence of severe mental suffering, but he did find that there had been lesser breaches under section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that, aside from the actual denial of liberty, prisons need to have additional sanctions open to them to discipline prisoners such as Christopher Taunoa, who was described by guards as being the most difficult and disruptive inmate they had ever encountered, and that such alleged breaches of human rights are sometimes necessary if prisons are to maintain any sense of order?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I most certainly do agree that there needs to be forms of discipline in prisons against recalcitrant prisoners, and the person mentioned by the member was certainly one of those prisoners. However, those sanctions and that discipline obviously need to be within the rules set by this House.

Nanaia Mahuta: Will the court’s decision of 7 April this year on the Crown’s liability arising out of the behaviour modification regime be appealed?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. In fact, an appeal has already been filed.

Marc Alexander: Is the Minister concerned by the potential flood of hundreds of cases, if those four violent prisoners are compensated for time spent in solitary confinement; and does he agree that this sets a ridiculous precedent, whereby inmates may engage in violent and disruptive behaviour on purpose just so they can be rewarded with six-figure payouts later on; if not, why not?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, I do not believe that a precedent will be set—and it will most certainly not be set if the forms of discipline and sanctions imposed within the prison regime are within the Penal Institutions Act of 1954, which was used in this particular case. Another reason why inmates will not be inclined to do this—as there will be no financial incentive for them to do so—is if this House reforms the law so that the first call on any damages given to any prisoner who is wronged goes to the victims the offender has wronged.

Marc Alexander: Is the Minister concerned that if prisons are not able to impose further disciplinary actions on inmates, then such an absence of boundaries will have a detrimental effect on their potential rehabilitation, particularly in the case of those who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions in the first place, like Christopher Taunoa, who protests his innocence on all counts and claims he is not a violent person, despite evidence to the contrary?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is most certainly evidence to the contrary of that inmate’s wrong claims. There are sanctions within prisons; there is also discipline within prisons, but it has to be applied within the rules that are there and are of long standing.

Working for Families Package—Eligibility

10. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his answer to written question No. 8943(2004), which indicates that by 2007, 50 percent of people receiving the accommodation supplement as a result of the Government’s Working for Families package will be single people with no dependent children; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): As the member knows because I have already sent him a revised answer to the question, the answer is no. Officials had not included in their original answer the effects of changes to eligibility as a result of the Working for Families package, and had not indicated that fact to me.

John Key: What reasons would lead the Minister to believe that it is fair and logical that in 2007, 150 single people with no dependent children, and earning between and $40,000 and $80,000 a year, will receive the accommodation supplement under the Government’s Working for Families package, while at the same time 88 percent of the families earning between $25,000 and $45,000 a year will receive not 1c towards their accommodation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Of the number of families that the member refers to, my calculation is that roughly one half of 1 percent—no, less than that; a good deal less than that—of those are receiving the accommodation supplement. No doubt they are people with extremely high accommodation costs, presumably primarily in the central Auckland area. The accommodation supplement is based on the system brought into place by the previous National Government.

Janet Mackey: Who benefits from the Working for Families package?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Working for Families package puts more money in the pockets of nearly 300,000 low and middle income families, and that will total about $1.1 billion a year at its full implementation. The accommodation assistance part of that package is a little under one-seventh of the total.

Rodney Hide: In respect of benefits, can the Minister confirm that there are 900,000 New Zealanders in total on welfare benefits, superannuation, accident compensation, and student allowances, and that there will be 150,000 working families getting family credits, which makes over a million New Zealanders who are hooked into full or partial Government support, and does he think it is a good outcome to have one in three adults dependent on the State for their income?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the member himself noted, nearly half of that total number are superannuitants. Perhaps it is ACT’s policy to have incentives for work for those who are 85 or 95 years old, but it is not the policy of this Government.

John Key: What are the exact criteria that allow the 150 single people with no dependent children, who earn between $40,000 and $80,000 a year, to get an accommodation supplement under the Government’s Working for Families package, while thousands of low-income families in New Zealand will miss out?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Like all targeted mechanisms, they are based on need. The primary criteria for the accommodation supplement were developed under the National Government in the 1990s.

John Key: Why did the Government’s Working for Families fact sheet No. 3 state that 15,000 extra people will get the accommodation supplement, when, in fact, the Minister’s own answers to my office state that around one-third of that number will get it; and why will half of the $478 million that will be spent on the Working for Families package accommodation supplement in the next 3 and a bit years be given to people with no children, who are single, and who earn up to $80,000 per year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That was a very long question, and I will try to give a short answer. As the member said, only 150 families come into that new group of “super-rich”—as he outlined in National Party terms—earning about $40,000 or $50,000 a year. I note that that income is well under that of the top tax rate, which we are usually told is being imposed on people with very modest incomes. The vast bulk of people receiving the supplement are people on very low incomes, but to qualify for that supplement they must have a very high level of rental. The single people he refers to include a wide range of people, including single superannuitants. If the member wants to attack little old ladies, let him go and do it.

John Key: What is the right answer, in terms of the percentage of the Working for Families package that will go to those New Zealanders who are on benefits, as opposed to those who are working: the 33 percent number that the Minister talked about around Budget day, the 40-odd percent number that the Minister actually rolled out some days after he was challenged on that, or the numbers that look as though they could be in excess of that from all the answers he has sent to my office?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The accurate answer is around 40 percent. I also tell the member that of the 21,600 families and people who will be eligible for accommodation—[Interruption] I tell Dr Smith that I have already answered that, if he had bothered to listen. Of the additional 21,600 people who will be eligible for the accommodation supplement as a result of the eligibility changes, 14,900 are families with children.

Burglaries—Counties-Manukau, Resolution

11. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: What has been the average time taken to attend burglary complaints in Counties-Manukau in the 6 months to June 2004, and what was the longest time taken?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I am advised that the average response time is 20 hours and 51 minutes. Because of the way the information relating to the other part of the question is stored, I am not able to supply that at the moment, but I will give a copy to the member as soon as it is available. I remind the House that burglary responses are often arranged at the convenience of the victim. Burglaries in the Counties-Manukau district have dropped from 9,069 in 2002-03 to only 8,006 this year, a drop of 1,063 burglaries. That is pretty good.

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had two parts to it: the average time and longest time. I do not think the Minister answered the second part about the longest time.

Mr SPEAKER: I do. The Minister said he would give the member some more information.

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the slowing of the response time to burglaries over the last 3 years in nine out of the 12 police districts around New Zealand due to the fact that experienced senior police officers have been forced away from investigating crime in order to issue traffic tickets, or is it because the police have been tied up in dealing with the 14 percent rise in violent crime since he has been Minister?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Neither.

Georgina Beyer: What other information does the Minister have on crime in Counties-Manukau since the 2001-02 fiscal year, and does the Minister have any comment on police work in general?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question can be answered, and the second part may be briefly commented on.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There has been a huge drop in the number of burglaries, a drop in theft from 13,400 cases to 11,495, a drop in violent crime from 6,167 cases to 5,337, and a drop in overall dishonesty from 29,885 cases to 27,295. The police in New Zealand are doing a good job, and I think all members should congratulate them on the work they are doing, rather than give them the bagging that has gone on over the last 12 months.

Dr Muriel Newman: What is the Minister’s response to the complaint from the Commissioner of Police that his strategy of directing the majority of newly funded sworn staff into traffic policing has eroded the flexibility historically available to the commissioner to sort out problem areas as they emerge; and has that not resulted in delays in the police investigating burglaries in nine out of the 12 police districts while the number of traffic tickets issued has trebled, outperforming all the police’s performance targets?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The commissioner sets the policy of where he will send new staff; I have nothing to do with that. I think the member should look at the facts. Road policing is being well done, and today’s crime stats show that policing is being done well across the country. General crime is down, and our roads are generally safer. That member should thank the police, rather than bag them as she always does.

Tourism Strategy 2010—Policy

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has he made this week concerning the implementation of the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism): This week, at the New Zealand Tourism Conference, I announced a number of initiatives developed out of recommendations of the strategy. These included a postgraduate tourism research scholarship fund; $1.4 million over 3 years towards a major tourism yield research programme, in partnership with the Tourism Industry Association and Lincoln University; and funding towards the promotion and utilisation of the Tourism Planning Toolkit, in partnership with Local Government New Zealand.

Moana Mackey: What have been the key factors contributing to the successful implementation of the strategy?

Hon MARK BURTON: As with the development of the strategy itself, the success of its implementation has reflected the extent to which this Government has worked with key sector interests, including the Tourism Industry Association, Local Government New Zealand, Tourism New Zealand, education and training providers, and key operators such as the Hotel Council and the Inbound Tour Operators Council of New Zealand, to effect positive working relationships.

Bills

Aquaculture Reform Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I move, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee with an instruction that the committee present its final report on or before 29 November 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The Aquaculture Reform Bill amends the Resource Management Act, and the Fisheries Acts of 1983 and 1996, to secure a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry. It addresses shortcomings in the poorly integrated coastal planning, aquaculture, and fisheries management regimes. The bill balances economic development, environmental sustainability, treaty obligations, and community concerns. The Government recognised that the current dual regimes under the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Acts were producing an overload of marine farming applications, leading to higher processing costs, delays, and poor environmental results. Prior to the aquaculture moratorium, people could apply for space in almost any part of the coastal marine area, and there was no limit on the amount of space that they could apply for. In the late 1990s, demand for space increased fivefold. That placed enormous pressure on councils and communities to cope with the volume of applications. The bill will enable councils to look at all the sustainability issues related to aquaculture, and therefore they will be better able to deal with all of its effects on the environment and to assist the aquaculture industry to develop in a sustainable way.

Under the reforms, new aquaculture can take place only in aquaculture management areas, which regional councils will implement through their coastal plans. Councils will be able to manage demand for space in a controlled way. The bill introduces greater flexibility in creating aquaculture management areas. In addition to the normal council planning process, the industry may initiate and fund a facilitated private plan change, and, if successful, it will have preferential allocation of that space. As aquaculture management areas will be created by the plan change process, affected parties and the public will continue to have a say about where aquaculture should be allowed to take place. The bill also gives regional councils the ability to manage the allocation of coastal space, rather than having to process all applications on a “first come, first served” basis. Unoccupied space in aquaculture management areas will be tendered unless the regional coastal plan provides otherwise. Tender income will be shared between the Crown and the relevant regional council.

The bill also provides iwi with, where possible, the allocation of an area equivalent to 20 percent of the total marine farming space allocated since 1992, and of 20 percent of any new marine farming space within a particular region. That would include 20 percent of any new space generated through an industry-initiated private plan change. That proposal represents a sound basis for Māori and the marine farming sector to move forward. We have aligned the aquaculture settlement with the 1992 fisheries deed of settlement—aquaculture being clearly the unfinished business of that 1992 settlement. This proposal is a full and final settlement of Māori claims to commercial marine farming space post - September 1992. That is an important step. Settling contemporary commercial claims removes a major impediment to progress and certainty. It will also allow Māori to continue to be a major contributor to the development of the aquaculture industry. In order to obtain space equivalent to 20 percent of the space already allocated since 1992, the Crown will look to achieve the goal by providing new space if it is available. The Crown may purchase space currently being used for marine farming on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis. If that is not possible, the financial equivalent may be provided to Māori. In addition, any marine farming space provided to iwi would be subject to all general Resource Management Act requirements. Initially, the marine farming space allocated to Māori would be provided to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, to hold for direct allocation to iwi—those same iwi that were entitled to receive an allocation of inshore fisheries quota under the 1992 deed of settlement.

The aquaculture industry needs to know what the bill will mean for it. Existing farms already under a Resource Management Act regime will continue for the life of their coastal permits. The bill contains transitional provisions to move the existing marine farming authorisations granted under the Fisheries Acts or the Marine Farming Act into the new regime. Marine Farming Act farms will have Resource Management Act consents for 20 years with one right of extension at the end, provided the farm remains in an aquaculture management area. Marine farms with existing coastal permits to occupy space will be deemed to be aquaculture management areas for the types of aquaculture activities authorised by the permit, unless that area is identified in the plan or proposed plan as being unsuitable for aquaculture. Marine farmers will no longer require a marine farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983. They will simply be required to be registered as fish farmers under the Fisheries Act 1996 for the purposes of record-keeping and product-tracking, and their activity will be managed through the coastal permit issued under the Resource Management Act.

The industry has told us that the current “first come, first served” approach for allocating aquaculture space is not the best option when a resource consent expires. Now when a marine farm resource consent expires, provided it is still within an aquaculture management area and the proposed marine-farming operation will be substantially the same, the incumbent’s application will be considered first, if he or she meets specified criteria. Those criteria include complying with the regional coastal plan, showing a good track record in meeting consent conditions, and whether the marine farm demonstrates current industry good practice. That mechanism appropriately recognises a reasonable expectation of commercial certainty for operators, but for the avoidance of any possible doubt I state clearly that the procedure in no way confers occupation rights in perpetuity over public space.

This bill provides for the sustainable growth of the aquaculture industry in our country. Once this bill is passed, the temporary national aquaculture moratorium and the local moratoria in Tasman Bay, Southland, and the Firth of Thames that have been in place since 1984 can be lifted. The bill needs to be passed no later than the last sitting day of 2004, so that the legislation is in force before those moratoria expire. In the last few months we have made extraordinary progress in getting to this point, and that is in no small way thanks to the efforts of my predecessor, the Hon Pete Hodgson, the work done under great pressure by staff from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry for the Environment, and the advice, cooperation, and goodwill from representatives of the industry and of local government. I am confident that that pattern of behaviour will continue for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and that the latent potential of the aquaculture industries will be available to our communities. It is with a considerable degree of pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): It will be no surprise to the House that National will oppose this bill, simply because of all the foolishness that we have seen over the last 3 years. In fact, the National Party believes that the aquaculture industry is the most polite and patient sector in this country. We in the National Party cannot believe the amount of garbage that the sector has had to put up with in the last 3 years. Firstly, it accepted a moratorium extension upon a moratorium extension, and kindly said that it guessed the process would take a long time, but that it hoped the Government would get things right. My concern, and I know this is the private concern of the sector, is that this Government sees moratoriums as a solution, not as a means to an end. That is why the Government put one in, why it extended it, and why the Minister is panicking about not getting this bill through the House by the end of this year.

The second reason we believe that the aquaculturists are the most polite and patient sector in the country is that they are standing back and getting kicked around while the Government passes off 20 percent of the aquaculture space to Māori, in order to do a deal over the seabed and foreshore issue. If the Labour Government does not believe that Māori own the seabed and foreshore, why is it giving them 20 percent of that space? If Labour believes that Māori own the seabed and foreshore, why does it not give them 100 percent of the aquaculture space? The Minister should come clean on his deal to try to keep the Labour Party’s fractious relationship with Māori sweet.

The third issue that aquaculturists have taken on the chin is the Minister’s intention to put mussel spat into the quota management system, regardless of the bureaucracy and the absurdity of having it in that system. Even though when mussel spat washes up on Ninety Mile Beach it dies, this Minister is to put it into the quota management system. The poor old aquaculturists will then have to deal with a bureaucracy and a monopoly just to deal with mussel spat, let alone with their mussel farms and the regulations that relate to marketing and selling overseas.

The fourth issue that aquaculturists have had to put up with in the last few years is that they have had to wait patiently, and then watch and wait some more, while applications that are going through the permitting process take years upon years, even though the Minister claims he has given increased resources for that process. This new Minister of Fisheries does not realise that in the business environment, marketing decisions often have to be made in weeks, not months, and that expansion plans have to be executed in months, not years. For the Minister to have over 200 permit applications build up in the permitting process over the last few years is absolutely appalling.

National knows that the issue of perpetuity is of particular concern to the aquaculture industry. It wants certainty and sanctity of property rights. When aquaculturists put in a marine farm they want to know that when the consent comes up for renewal in 35 years, if the area is still to be one that has aquaculture they will be the people who farm that area, and a new fly-by-nighter cannot come in and take their place. This Government is running roughshod over that whole concept. National absolutely supports a first right of refusal. We do not support a right of renewal, or a right in perpetuity—not at all—but we support a first right of refusal. An incumbent should have priority over a newcomer, due to his or her pre-existing investment. That is usual in business, as it provides certainty. A marine farmer who is already established and who is a good tenant should not have to have his or her space taken over by a fly-by-nighter because there is no right of refusal. We are very suspicious about the Minister’s clauses in this bill that state that at the expiry of a consent, an incumbent’s application will be considered first if he or she meets certain criteria. What does that mean? What are the criteria? Well, I can tell members that right now hundreds of bureaucrats are dreaming up the criteria that aquaculturists will have to face just to remain as incumbents in an area.

National says this: incumbents should have the first right of refusal and should get the space if they are good tenants. If they have been good tenants on a marine farm and their consent comes up for renewal, they should get the space. If they have been bad tenants there should be a question mark over that. But this Minister says that Labour will consider a right of first refusal as long as incumbents meet certain criteria, which the bureaucrats are dreaming up at this moment, as we speak. There will be lists, and one of the criteria will be whether someone is Māori. The issue will be the iwi the person belongs to, and whether the person can trace his or her ancestry back somehow to Māui. That is what the criteria will be, because this Government wants to throw aquaculture space at Māori in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue. That is absolutely appalling. When it comes to the first right of refusal, National says that an incumbent should have that right, and should get the space if he or she has been a good tenant.

We have been quite perplexed—and I know this has perplexed aquaculturists around the country and New Zealand in general—as to why Māori should get 20 percent of the marine space for free, as of right. I have the deed of settlement here for the claim by Ngāti Tama. It is interesting that that deed of settlement states that should tendering for coastal space occur, Ngāti Tama will have the preferential right to apply for 10 percent of the area.” So Ngāti Tama will get 20 percent, and will have the preferential right to get another 10 percent. Here is the deed of settlement for Ngāti Awa, which includes a provision that the Minister will give Ngāti Awa a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of the marine space. So Ngāti Awa will get 20 percent for free and will be allowed a preferential right to another 5 percent. Ngāti Ruanui in the Taranaki will get a preferential right to tender for an unspecified part of the aquacultural space, without that being defined. It is open-ended, so Ngāti Ruanui will get 20 percent and however much more it wants. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I just say to Government members that interjections should be rare, reasonable, and relevant. The Speaker will not allow a speaker to be drowned out.

PHIL HEATLEY: The Labour Minister was asking who negotiated those settlements, and he was accusing National of having done that. Well, here is one that was done in 2000; it is the Ngā Rauru Kītahi settlement. Ngāti Ruanui was done in 2001, so that was under the Labour Government. Labour gave 5 percent of the marine space in 2000 to Ngāti Awa and another 20 percent today. And, of course, the Ngāti Tama deed of settlement was finished off by the Labour Government, because it was post-1999. Ngāti Tama got 10 percent of the marine space, and is getting another 20 percent today.

Māori already have 43 percent of the aquaculture space throughout the industry. So when Māori go to Labour and say they own the foreshore and seabed, they are just about dead right. They do own it, because they have close to 50 percent of the aquaculture space across this country as it is, before the Minister gives them another 20 percent for free, in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): I want to give the member who just resumed his seat a limited history lesson, because those members on that side of the House suffer from either selective dementia or amnesia—or both. The member who resumed his seat—I cannot recall his name, but I do believe that he represents the area of Whangarei—

Phil Heatley: Very well!

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Yes, he is really appreciated up there. He has a new name; he is called “Wes”. They say “Wes the member?”. Here is the history lesson for that member. There was once a Minister of Justice and Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations called Douglas Montrose Graham. He was a senior member in the Cabinet of a National Government. That particular Minister of a National Government set in place the precedents that we have enshrined in this House in a range of agreements with Māori people over settlement processes. When this House of great honour sets in place constitutional engagements by way of documents settled in the name of the Crown, as with those with Māori, we do not destroy them lightly and we do not walk away from them lightly. I tell that member to recall very quickly who set those precedents in place. Who set those parameters in place? Who set those constitutional conventions—not just conventions but statutes—in place? It was a National Government that set those parameters in place. They are the bedrock of our constitution, as any property right is. We do not, in any circumstances, err from those precedents. The Clerk of the House, time after time, has given select committees a clear steer that we do not change those agreements, which have been contracted for, and negotiated by, the executive. Those agreements are, in fact, a lot like international arrangements. Rather than my putting words into the mouth of the Clerk of the House, I would opine that they go very close to that.

Once, in 1992, in the dead of the night—for the benefit of that member from Whangarei—a number of Māori, without consultation and without mandate, were called into the parliamentary offices of the Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, and the Hon Douglas Montrose Graham, and they signed the “Treaty of Wellington”, also known as the Sealord’s deal. This history lesson needs to be carefully engraved in the minds and the memory of those on the other side of the House who suffer from selective dementia and/or amnesia. The reality is that in 1992, when Māori won at the Court of Appeal the right to uphold their property rights, and injuncted the roll-out of a world-leading quota management system, they were set to negotiate with the Crown. Under a National Party Government, the Crown set in place the following precedents. In light of Māori giving up their rights to customary commercial fishing rights, the Sealord’s deal was settled, without negotiation, consultation, or mandate—no hīkoi, no mandate.

The member should reflect on the fact that the issue of aquaculture was raised in those negotiations. Douglas Montrose Graham and the Prime Minister of the country at that time indicated that they would not settle in terms of aquaculture, for the reason that it was not even in a policy scope at that particular point in time. It was not even able to be addressed or negotiated, because it was still in the germane, early stage. As usual with the National Party, when the going gets tough it kicks for touch. When the going got tough, whether on Securities Commission law, telecommunications law, electricity, or transport, it stuffs it up, and on this particular issue it did not finish the job. Once again, a Labour Government has had to finish unfinished business. The precedents are in place. The parameters have been driven into the bedrock of our constitution, and members opposite did that. They were in the executive and were part of a caucus that signed off on them. I am sick and tired of Māori people being the meat in the sandwich, and being the fodder of the National Party at the moment. The member for Whangarei is missing in his constituency, his leader is missing from here day after day, and we have to wear that.

With this legislation we are giving the aquaculture industry certainty for a time. We are giving the industry stability and direction. No doubt the Primary Production Committee will look at the legislation. The Primary Production Committee is a fine committee—for the most part; I do not want to mislead the House. Apart from the National Party members, who do not really contribute, its members are a wonderful bunch of people from whom we will get a right result. We look forward to this legislation being engaged with by the communities.

I conclude by stating quite carefully and clearly that Douglas Montrose Graham set the parameter at 20 percent of new quota stock. Douglas Montrose Graham, Jim Bolger, and all his mates in that National Party Government set those parameters. We are merely concluding unfinished business in terms of the deal, and this measure is the best form of closure. It gives great solidity and sustainability. I commend the bill to the select committee and to the communities.

I finally conclude by noting and stating quite carefully and clearly that I am grateful for the work the officials put into the very tiresome and onerous task of bringing certainty and closure to this issue. I also acknowledge the work of two very fine Cabinet Ministers and colleagues. They are Ministers Pete Hodgson and David Benson-Pope, who herald from the great Mainland, from the area of Dunedin. With that, I commend the bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First will be supporting the Aquaculture Reform Bill, and in doing so we welcome the pending end of the moratorium. I agree with Mr Phil Heatley in one regard and that is that the aquaculture industry has been extremely patient. A moratorium has been imposed on it over past years, and that has been extremely frustrating. We know that the industry is grumpy about it. We also know and are concerned about the fact that the industry has been losing market share in markets—particularly for green-lipped mussels—that it had forged at great cost to itself. New Zealand First supports in all its forms an export-led economy. We believe that the aquaculture industry is perfect for New Zealand. We support the ability for the industry to get on with the job.

We all know in our heart of hearts, although we do not say too much about it in this House, that our seas and oceans are being overfished. We know that from the evidence that comes before us. We know that from the multitude of overseas speakers who come to our land to speak about it. We know that many of the seas in the Northern Hemisphere are producing far, far less than they have done in times past. For the first time in our history we have the technology and the capacity to make species in our ocean extinct. While we can admire the efficiencies of the technology, and while the technology drives down food prices, there is no question that we are, to use a crude term, raping our oceans. Admittedly, the aquaculture industry is a small start, but it is a start to farming the foreshore—a widely heard term nowadays—in anticipation of our moving further afield and farming our oceans. The technology is not here to farm our oceans at this point, but we certainly have the technology to farm in the form of aquaculture, and we are doing that. I and New Zealand First believe that New Zealand is uniquely suited to this industry, because of our huge shoreline per capita of population. We will uniquely gain large benefit from the aquaculture industry.

As I said at the beginning, we welcome the fact that this legislation will end the moratorium on the moratorium. We look forward to this industry being able to march forward with more certainty. It is simply not fair that a stop has been put on an expanding industry. This industry has expected and has planned to extend its exports—and I do not apologise for talking a lot about exports—from the current level of approximately $300 million per year to in excess of $1 billion by the year 2020. That is the target the industry has laid out publicly, and we have no reason to believe that it will not achieve it. Unfortunately, with the moratorium one would have to say that that plan has been put back 3 years, but my faith in this industry is such that I believe that it will make that time up and will in fact achieve that target. That is good not just for the participants in this industry but for our whole country, and it is something that I believe, quite frankly, is good for our oceans, as well.

Unlike the National Party, we welcome the participation of Māori in this industry. I am not talking about the 20 percent quota necessarily; I am talking about the high percentage of Māori who are already, though their own endeavours and their own businesses, participating in this industry. We praise them for their foresight, and we praise their effort and their enterprise. So we are certainly not going to go around knocking the participation of Māori. In fact, New Zealand First does not believe that we should be in the business of differentiating between Māori and anybody else in New Zealand. Everybody should be helped to contribute to our wealth and our exports.

My colleague Jim Peters will speak on a large aspect of this bill that touches on the Resource Management Act and local government. It is regional government that will be allocating public space for this industry to take place in, and he will be speaking about that. But I say to the House that we have had the moratorium for a reason, and that was to allow local government to get up to speed, to put in place aquaculture management areas, to do the planning, and to get ready for what was called, when the moratorium was put in place, a gold rush for those people who want to involve themselves in this industry.

It is perhaps sad but true that everybody wants this industry but nobody wants it outside his or her kitchen window. To use an extreme example, I suggest to members that if space were allocated in Oriental Bay here in Wellington, outside the million-dollar apartments, there would be huge controversy, and it would not be, in the main, controversy caused by Māori. Aquaculture would be an inappropriate use of that particular part of our foreshore. So it is important, and it will be an ongoing concern of local government, to make sure that this industry is extended and proceeds in sympathy with our environment. We are for growth, but we are not for growth that ruins the environment, either in the way of despoiling the shoreline or in the way of visual pollution. As I said, aquaculture is certainly not something people want to see outside their kitchen window, in their favourite little bay. But we do not believe that that needs to be the case. We believe there are plenty of areas around our country for this activity. We are blessed with a large shoreline. We believe there are plenty of places where this activity can take place for the benefit of us all and to the detriment of virtually nobody.

We look to the regional councils doing that sympathetically. It is their responsibility. They have the local knowledge. They are the closest to the people. They are the people who are on the job, and we look forward to their doing that. I would have liked to see all regional councils in a position to have aquaculture management areas in place and clearly defined. I think it is unfortunate that that is not yet the case. I guess there is some sympathy for the fact that they have been unwilling to move, in many cases, for fear of litigation. But we would like to have seen them have these aquaculture management areas in place before the moratorium was lifted. I hope, on behalf of New Zealand First, that as this bill goes through the select committee process the councils will see some finality for the moratorium, and that that will encourage them to stop mucking around and to get the job on the road, because this industry needs certainty so that it can get on with doing what it does best, and that is exporting and earning money.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens welcome and support the Aquaculture Reform Bill, but I have to say that we have grave concerns about the very short time period of 3 months allowed for the select committee to do its job. This is a big bill.

Hon David Carter: It’s 2 months.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: 29 November? This is August; September, October, November—3 months.

Hon David Carter: And you have to call for submissions.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Yes, that is part of it. This is a big bill with big issues and many stakeholders. There are complex issues of interface with the Resource Management Act. It is also a burden for small parties with few members who each have to cover a much wider range of issues than the large parties do, and where the inability of one member to be in the House for several weeks because he or she is hearing submissions at the select committee does place a real burden on the rest of the caucus.

If it were not for the fact that the moratorium is about to expire and we have to have legislation in place, I would be voting against the referral motion. The Government was well aware that the moratorium was going to expire and that the bill should have been in the House earlier than it has been, but given that it is not, I do not think we have much choice but to try to do it in those 3 months.

Parliament has been waiting a long time for this legislation. When I first came here, at the end of 1996, the select committee I joined had previously considered a bill to try to deal with the complex issues of the interface between the Fisheries Act, the Marine Farming Act, and the Resource Management Act. The bill had been reported back to Parliament, and Parliament did not proceed with it. The committee I found myself on, then proceeded to consider it again, with some changes, and we reported back to Parliament; and again Parliament did not proceed. Now, finally, after many years we have a bill that deals with aquaculture properly, and I guess we all think that that is a good thing.

It creates a single consent process under the Resource Management Act instead of the complex, overlapping permit systems under three different pieces of legislation. As well as streamlining the process for marine farmers, the bill also gives the opportunity for better environmental controls, by putting it clearly under regional councils. The environmental impacts of marine farming range from “negligible” for things like mussel farms, which simply catch the nutrients in the water that washes past them, to “quite significant” for some forms of fin-fish marine farms, which have to be fed with 10 times their weight, caught from the wild fishery, and which are, in no sense, a substitute for depleting wild fisheries. But the impacts of each of those types of farming need to be dealt with properly under the Resource Management Act, and under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which makes it very clear that this legislation is about sustainable management.

Aquaculture is about a right to space, not about a right to fish. So it should be managed like rights to space on land, rather than like the Fisheries Act and the quota management system. So this is the right place to put aquaculture. As with land, consents are limited to 35 years, which is actually a long time; it is virtually a person’s whole working-life. We cannot foresee the sorts of conditions that might pertain at the end of that period, and it is entirely appropriate that consents should expire at that time, and that renewal should be possible if it is still appropriate, and if the fisher has behaved according to the rules.

We have to keep in mind the fact that, unlike farming on land, marine farmers are using public space for private purposes. That is fine, because they are also contributing economic wealth and jobs to the community. But they should never think they have the same rights to that space, as a farmer who owns land; and they do owe the community appropriate behaviour and good management of that space, and concern for the activities of other users of coastal space with which they might come into conflict.

The Greens supported the imposition of the aquaculture moratorium because we were seeing a gold rush for marine space, with no proper controls. Regional councils had created some quite stupid inconsistencies in their coastal plans, and there was a need to get that sorted out before we allowed more applications to proceed. One particular inconsistency in my neck of the woods was the Hauraki Gulf in the Firth of Thames, where we have a line down the middle of the firth that separates Auckland region on the west side, from Waikato region on the Coromandel side. On the Coromandel side, Environment Waikato had set two very specific areas, saying: “You may have aquaculture within these two areas, but not elsewhere. You may have this large a farm, you may have this many of them, and here are the conditions.” Just across the water on the other side, Auckland had said: “You can apply anywhere you like and we’ll consider it on a case by case basis.”

We have two major concerns about the legislation. Some councils still have no aquaculture management areas. The moratorium has been there all that time, and they have not stirred themselves and put the necessary plans in place. It is too much trouble or it is too expensive. So the Government has decided to allow them to be lazy, to allow them to not do their job, and to allow marine farmers to introduce private plan changes, which transfer the cost of the planning process away from the council and on to the marine farmer. Well, if the only people involved were the council and the applicants, that would be fine—that is, the people who benefit from the decision picking up the cost, and it saves ratepayers.

But what about the third party to the hearing—that is, the public? What about the people who have very strong feelings themselves about where, on their stretch of coast, in their favourite bay, it is appropriate to put marine farming structures, and where it is not? Instead of participating in a single process, whereby the council sets out a plan for its whole region and says: “Here, here, and here, but not there.”, they are now potentially going to have to take part in a series of processes whenever a marine farmer pops up and says: “We want this area designated as an aquaculture management area.” They will have to go through a whole plan-change process, and then, a couple of months later, another farmer pops up and says: “By the way, we want this bit over here designated as an aquaculture management area.” I can just see some of my friends out there, who have a real concern about their local environment, being run ragged trying to deal with all these different applications, and that is not fair.

We support strongly the 20 percent given to Māori. It is a logical sequence of the Māori fisheries settlement of 1992, but we are not in favour of allocation being left to Te Ohu Kai Moana. It is actually a cop-out. This is a very onerous task, as is evident if we look at how long it took in the initial fisheries allocation. This proposal could have been considered by the select committee that was considering the Maori Fisheries Bill. The committee could have put some allocation proposals in place before the bill continued, but that opportunity was denied to it. We do not think it is the function of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to do this work. It does not want to do it. The Government should establish an allocation process and take responsibility for its implementation. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee does not believe that it is the Government’s general dogsbody for managing the issues that are too hard. Nevertheless, we support the bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I hope it comes as no surprise to members of this House when I say that the ACT party will not be supporting this bill. I believe that people listening to Parliament will recognise that the Aquaculture Reform Bill is hugely important to New Zealand. But it comes down to the fact that this bill is more valuable to one section of our community as it is all about delivering to Māori. It is all about the cargo cult that has developed in this country under this Labour Government. It is a cult that says to one important section of our society that those people are more privileged than anybody else. It says: “We will constantly deliver to you those things that we will not deliver to the other 80 percent of the population of this country, but we will continue with this largesse and deliver whatever you want.”

That, really, was the reason the moratorium was imposed. We have had all sorts of red herrings from the Green Party, which said that the regional councils could not cope. I have plenty of documents to show that my regional council in Otago, for example, was almost begging the Government to let aquaculture go ahead. It had the coastal plans in place, it was right up with the game, and it has waited year after year for this to occur. It had to wait for the Government to do its negotiations and get this—and I have to call it this—racism in the form of this bill prepared. It is a bill that we will oppose because we oppose privilege. The ACT party opposes privilege to one or another section of our society. We oppose racism.

Jill Pettis: The member’s nose is growing.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: It is quite interesting that the “member for Billingsgate” is speaking on this fisheries matter. It is quite appropriate for the fishwife.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a personal reflection. The member will please carry on.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: We oppose tribalism in the 21st century. Tribalism has devolved nothing to any community anywhere in the world, yet this bill perpetuates the myth of tribalism. That will not benefit Māori one iota. I challenge the Minister of Fisheries to stand in this House and tell me how a street kid in Māngere will benefit from this bill. He or she will not benefit in any way. If it did benefit any of those children who are living on the streets—and sadly too many of them are Māori—I would probably say that it is not a bad idea. But it will not. The Māori elite will benefit from this bill, not the street kids.

We will oppose this bill on a constant basis because that Minister, David Benson-Pope, who has been in the job for long enough now, has put forward to this House bills that can only be described as dogs’ breakfasts. We have had a 16-page Supplementary Order Paper on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) because that Minister and his ministry get it so wrong. He does not know his job, and that is a great shame. I would predict confidently that the Primary Production Committee will do exactly the same with this Aquaculture Reform Bill as it did with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), because this bill will not deliver to those people who want to get involved in this very vital, vibrant, and progressive industry.

I have heard figures quoted of up to $6 billion, potentially, in terms of wealth generation for this country from aquaculture. I am sure that the majority of people—excepting the Greens, who would turn the whole of our coastal waters into some sort of glorified marine reserve if they could possibly get their way—want to see this industry thrive. There is little doubt that the feral fishery throughout the world is in decline. The real future lies in aquaculture. That means ascribing guaranteed property rights to those who are engaged in this industry because of the need for very substantial sums of capital to be tied up in this. The concept of having secure rights to these coastal waters is absolutely vital.

But there is another aspect that causes me huge angst—and I am sure the members of the select committee feel the same way—and that is the involvement of the Department of Conservation in this bill. It appears, from my reading of it, that the new section 165O enables the Minister of Conservation to override a regional authority. It states: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, direct a regional council—(a) not to proceed with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area; or (b) in proceeding with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area, to give effect to the matters specified in the Order in Council.” That effectively gives the Minister of Conservation the power of veto. This House, and I am sure the public, knows full well that the Department of Conservation—driven by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—wants to have up to 20 percent of our coastal waters set aside as marine reserves. So when marine farmers want to get involved, they will face the same problems that those of us who are involved in land-based activities face on a constant basis—appeal after appeal after appeal by the Department of Conservation. That is why it is absolutely vital that the Department of Conservation, and its advocacy role especially, is removed from the statute book. Its job is the management of its resource on behalf of the public; it is not to fight marine farmers or members of the farming community on land, on a constant basis and in using up vast resources of public money to fight the wealth creators of this country.

Phil Heatley: To fill the coffers of the Green Party.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: That is right. The regional councils, as I said some time ago—what was it; 3 years ago?—said that they wanted to get on with the job. They had identified their aquaculture marine areas in which they wanted to get this industry up and running. So the opportunity cost to that industry—and to the country—is huge because, as I said earlier, this Government wants to pander yet again to Māori.

There was an excellent article in the Independent—I think in Wednesday’s edition. Tim Donoghue wrote an excellent article about how “Māori strike gold in marine farms”. Members will note that it is not about everybody striking gold, or about everybody being involved in that gold rush. The strike is specific, and that cargo cult, as I mentioned earlier, will be perpetuated yet again. That is of huge concern, I am sure, to many, many Māori as well, not just to those of us who do not agree with the concept of special privilege based on race.

But I am also totally concerned about another issue, and I will read from Mr Donoghue’s article: “Already there is a rift in Maoridom between local hapu, on the one side, and the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (TOKM) on the other, about the allocation of future aquaculture marine areas …”. What will we see into the future? Will there be 20 years, as we have had, on the allocation of fish stocks by the Māori Fisheries Commission? I cannot see that this bill will assist Māori, even when they get that 20 percent. The arguments will go on and on. It would have been far better to allocate areas.

For example, down in my neck of the woods, there are well-established Māori communities—say, at Moeraki, at Karitane, and Waikouaiti. Those are areas, few would dispute, where Māori have natural assimilation or affiliation to the land, and they are perfectly entitled to those areas. But what we have in this bill is something of another natural disaster from an incompetent Minister.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of this Aquaculture Reform Bill. United Future welcomes this bill being debated here for the first time in the House today. It is long overdue in being able to provide a way forward for the aquaculture industry. Earlier this year when United Future gave support for the extension of the moratorium, we made it absolutely clear that there had to be a bill in the House this year in order for provision to be made for the growth of the aquaculture industry before the expiration date of the moratorium, which is now set at December of this year. What is going on in the aquaculture industry is truly amazing, as is the way in which we are able to farm fish—that is, both fin fish and shellfish: mussels, kina, pāua, and so on. As the honourable Gerald Eckhoff, the speaker before me, said, it really does offer us hope for the future in this valuable food resource, because we know that natural fish stocks are being depleted internationally. So it is important that New Zealand is able to take its place in developing its own aquaculture industry.

Various figures have been stated as to the worth of the industry and the speed at which it will grow. It is estimated in some cases that there will be up to $1 billion of export earnings in the next 10 years, which would be an amazing feat if it were accomplished.

This bill transfers from the Ministry of Fisheries the responsibility for marine farming permits under the Fisheries Act to regional councils, which will be able to manage aquaculture space under the Resource Management Act. For this reason, I would have preferred to see the bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, where we are soon to be engaged in handling the reform of the Resource Management Act. Because a lot of this bill is about that legislation, it would have been useful if we could have handled those two bills in tandem, and been able to make sure that the way in which they would work together was synchronised. But we have left this bill in the good hands of the Primary Production Committee, and we trust that its members will not do to it what they did to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) when they came to a few sticky points.

However, marine farmers will no longer require a marine farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983, and I think that that is good news. It is important that they can develop this industry under the Resource Management Act and under regional council control, rather than under Ministry of Fisheries control—given some of the problems that have occurred in the last 10 or 15 years. They will simply have to register as a fish farmer, and we trust that that will expedite the progress of the development of the industry.

I particularly welcome the provisions in the bill for existing marine farming activities to be given priority when marine farmers apply for that activity to continue on the expiration of their permits. In fact, the explanatory note on the bill makes it very clear that they will have that priority over their space, unless of course the council has established an aquaculture marine area in a different area and has decided that that space will no longer be used in the marine area for aquaculture—in which case it will not apply.

But, otherwise, recognition is given to those who have begun aquaculture marine farming, and they will not have to queue up like everybody else to get a renewal of their permits, and I think that very important step is being addressed in this bill.

It is important, though, to note some of the other comments in the explanatory note, and for the benefit of the House, I quote from it: “The Bill provides mechanisms to reconcile any conflicts between aquaculture and commercial fishing.”—because there will be conflicts in that regard—“Under the new legislation, the Ministry of Fisheries will assess whether an AMA proposed by a regional council will have an undue adverse effect”, not just on commercial fishing, but also on customary and recreational fishing. This is very important, and I believe there will be many submissions to the committee on it, so that a balance is found in those competing priorities.

It is a concern amongst the recreational fishing community that suddenly marine farms will be cropping up everywhere and large areas will be dedicated to being aquaculture management areas. It would be another exclusionary zone where they will not be able to exercise their rights as New Zealanders to fish in this wonderful piece of paradise that we have.

So I am sure the committee will be listening intently to those submitters who come and seek to address their concerns about that balance between recreational fishing, customary fishing, commercial fishing, and now marine farming activities, and I trust that the committee will be able to find that balance.

With regard to the 20 percent allocation to Māori, United Future accepts that it is a continuation and completion of the settlement of 1992 negotiated by the National Government. Given that it is simply an allocation of space, it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to enable the industry to move forward without being hamstrung by further litigation over the interpretation of that 1992 settlement. Otherwise, we might be here in 10 years’ time, still trying to see this industry develop. We accept that it is a pragmatic solution, and we welcome the fact that Māori have accepted it so that all parties can move forward. It will offer Māori opportunities to engage in this very lucrative industry, and we welcome that because they ought to have that right to participate in it.

We also support the handling of the allocation through the mechanisms established for allocating the assets from the settlement that will be debated next week, I believe, in the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill, and all the structures that have been set up by that legislation, because it does fit well. Although it may, as the co-leader for the Greens said, be another imposition upon Te Ohu Kai Moana, it is the right place, I believe, for it to be handled, and we look forward to all those assets ultimately being released into the hands of iwi throughout the country, so that they may develop economically and make even greater contributions to the nation’s economy.

The bill introduces a new form of private plan change. I do not think this is ideal. It would have been much better if the regional councils had used the 3 years they have had during the moratorium to establish aquaculture management areas. I think there will be some complications in going forward in such a piecemeal fashion, where individual commercial interests have to undertake the plan change themselves. Therefore, the committee will have to put its mind to how to allocate the 20 percent to Māori when the aquaculture management area is not established right from the beginning, but done in this fashion instead, and there may be some other complications that arise with that piecemeal way forward.

But nevertheless, it is good to see that we will go forward with this. I hope to see some submissions come in, and from discussions I have had, I believe there will be some that suggest the aquaculture management area concept should be expanded to being an aquaculture marine park. This would include not just the sea environment, but also the adjacent land, because often there is a need for land-based activities to support marine farming. It would make sense, I believe, if the consent process could be handled under one set of rules that would be managed by the regional council. So we will see whether the committee will accept submissions on that through the committee stage. But I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to give United Future’s support to the first reading of the bill, and we wish the committee well in its deliberations through the submissions stage.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I want to speak only very briefly to this bill, because—[Interruption] Gosh, those members are a card! This is an important bill, and it is most important for the industry and all those who are associated with it that we assist in passing this bill through the House as quickly as we can. One of the aspects of this bill that I find particularly pleasing is that at long last we have a Government that is providing leadership on important issues. Combined with providing that leadership, we also have protections in place to protect our natural environment, and that is particularly important. This is a good bill and I look forward to it passing through the House as quickly as possible.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): For those who are now unsure what legislation we are talking about after that contribution from the junior Government whip, it is the Aquaculture Reform Bill, which National will oppose, and oppose vigorously. It has to be the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation that I have ever seen introduced into this House—the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation ever introduced into this House. The other aspect of it to which I am opposed is that it is the most racially biased legislation we have yet seen delivered by this Labour Government.

The reform of legislation around aquaculture is long overdue—of that there can be no doubt. I think it is worthy to recall Labour’s first response. Jill Pettis now says she is pleased with the leadership and the speedy moves to resolution. Labour’s first response to this issue was to impose a moratorium back on 28 November 2001. That moratorium—

Phil Heatley: I thought the moratorium was their second response.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The next response, which I will talk about shortly, was a further moratorium. The Government imposed the first moratorium and said that it would use that time to sort out its position. To be fair to the bungling David Benson-Pope, the current Minister of Fisheries, that legislation was advanced by Pete Hodgson, who, after a disastrous performance, was finally sacked by the Prime Minister because he could not make progress on that effort. The Government gave itself 3 years to prepare that legislation. Towards the end of its self-imposed deadline on the first moratorium—namely, 25 March 2004—what was its response but to rush back into the House and pass another piece of legislation, which was the second moratorium for that particular important industry.

That was after poor old Mr Hodgson had gone up and down the country promising the industry that his response to the first moratorium would not be to impose a second moratorium. Because of Mr Hodgson’s disastrous leadership in that industry, he was finally replaced by Mr David Benson-Pope, who has produced what I think will prove to be some of the worst, and certainly the most poorly drafted, legislation we have seen presented to the House.

The second point I make is that while this industry has been constrained by legislation, it has not been able to make the contribution it could have to the wealth of this nation. The industry is currently worth $340 million, exporting close to 70 percent of that amount. Industry spokespeople are on record as saying that by 2020, providing they are given the opportunity, it could be a billion-dollar industry. What has the Government done to reap that potential?

This legislation was presented to the House 2 days ago, on 24 August, and then, surprisingly, when the Minister made his contribution to the first reading, he effectively gave the select committee 2 months to work on it. The committee has to bring it back to the House by 29 November 2004. That date is closely connected to the seabed and foreshore legislation; this legislation is nothing but a blatant bribe and an attempt to buy Māori support on that issue. Of the 3 months given to the committee, 1 month will be lost to advertising for submissioners and giving them the opportunity to prepare their submissions. We will receive hundreds of submissions, and the select committee will not have the opportunity to give them due consideration.

David Benson-Pope is shaking his head. He could not care less, because he knows that he has given the select committee an impossible task in consulting with the industry. He has every intention of simply ignoring the work done by the select committee, including by members of his own party, as he has done with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill came back into the House with the recommendation that it not be passed, and the incompetent, bungling David Benson-Pope pushed on regardless. The Minister should ask why he is sending it to the select committee if the whole process will be just a sham because of the timetable.

The most controversial part of this legislation is the Government’s move to give 20 percent of current space to Māori and 20 percent of future space to Māori. I listened with huge interest to the contribution from John Tamihere, who obviously got the Prime Minister’s permission to make a contribution today. His history of the deed of settlement signed in 1992 is simply not fact. He talked about the involvement of Doug Graham. I spoke to Doug Graham personally and asked him for the history around the 1992 deed of settlement. The House has to realise that that deal was cobbled together in a matter of weeks, because suddenly an opportunity developed with Brierley Investments Ltd selling out of Sealord’s. There was no mention of aquaculture, despite the contribution from John Tamihere earlier.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Doug Kidd took it off the table, that’s why.

Hon DAVID CARTER: It was not mentioned in the agreement, and if David Benson-Pope manages to get off his chuff and read the deed of settlement, he will note that aquaculture is not included. It refers to giving Māori 20 percent of species that come into the quota management system. Today, this legislation is an attempt to extend the deed of settlement well past the quota management system. We are not about to bring aquaculture into the quota management system. This is about space for aquaculture, and it was never mentioned in the deed of settlement.

I want to talk about one particular clause in the 1992 deed of settlement. I refer David Benson-Pope to clause 5.1. Māori signed that, and this is what it states: “Māori agree that this Settlement Deed, and the settlement it evidences, shall satisfy all claims, current and future,”. This Government is today driving yet another division into race relations in New Zealand by giving Māori the opportunity to reopen the debate. Māori signed the deed of settlement in 1992 as full and final, but because the Government is totally embarrassed over the seabed and foreshore legislation, it has done this crafty deal by giving Māori far more than they expected and giving them 20 percent of space. I say to David Benson-Pope that it is a race for space, and that he should be ashamed of himself.

National will vigorously oppose this legislation. Hundreds of submissions will not be given a reasonable hearing at the select committee, because David Benson-Pope has done a deal with the Māori caucus on this legislation—

Hon David Benson-Pope: That member should stand aside. He is clearly prejudiced. He is the chair of the committee.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Now the Minister calls me prejudiced because I raised the issue. That is just so typical of the Labour Party. We had Jill Pettis interjecting earlier, when another member raised this issue, and she referred to him as a racist. It is time the Government was prepared to debate the issues, based on the facts. Government members should read the deed of settlement signed by everybody, including the Rt Hon. Doug Graham, but they should not attempt to rewrite history to get themselves out of an embarrassing position over the seabed and foreshore, because that is what they are doing.

I tell David Benson-Pope that it is not me who is prejudiced. It is the honourable member himself, if he is prepared to support this sort of legislation. What it will do is just continue to divide race relations in this country, and to suggest that I am the one who is prejudiced is the most insulting remark, and probably the most inane remark, that that Minister has ever passed across this House.

I conclude by saying that the future of the fishing industry is in aquaculture. The Government needs to find a way of moving it forward without rancour and prejudice. That is not what this legislation achieves. I oppose the legislation vigorously.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State): That was a very interesting contribution from that member, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, who said, no doubt as chair, that those hundreds of submissions “would not get a fair hearing”. What an interesting comment from the person mandated by this Parliament with guaranteeing the integrity of that process. That was a very sad statement indeed.

But that chairman’s credibility had been shot long before, viz. this point: he called the Hon David Benson-Pope a lazy Minister and said he should get off his chuff. We can count the number of weeks that that Minister has been in his job by the number of fisheries amendment bills there have been. There seems to have been about one a week. I have never seen a Minister produce so much legislation. One cannot call that lacking in productivity; I would call it “primary production”.

But if David Carter has trouble with numbers, obviously his colleague Mr Heatley has worse trouble, because he said that Māori already control 45 percent of aquaculture, and that as the bill says they will control 20 percent going forward, that percentage will go up. I am sorry but the average of 45 and 20 is less than 45.

The main point about this bill is that it provides certainty, and if any member of the National caucus other than the future finance Minister, Mr Connell, had ever been in business, that member would know that business likes certainty. This bill gives certainty. Aquaculture can, and will, grow.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): New Zealand First has maintained a very firm position since 2002 that it is very unfortunate that this bill, the Marine Reserves Bill, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have come to the House without New Zealand’s oceans policy first being completed. This disconnected approach to our marine space is most regrettable.

New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Primary Production Committee for one major reason, and that is that anyone who has an understanding of the industry’s needs and demands at the present time would know that the last thing we can afford in this country is to have yet further delay. This party vigorously opposed the first moratorium and the second moratorium, and we certainly would not wish further delay on the industry and on those regional councils that went ahead, took Minister Hodgson at his word, and developed aquaculture management areas to a point where action is taking place, and could take place tomorrow. Further delay is the last thing we would want, so to that degree New Zealand First is prepared to support the bill going to the Primary Production Committee. We await with interest the considerations that will come from those who are interested in the bill, and we will see what comes out of the select committee.

I would hope that, in so doing, the chairperson of that committee exercises an impartial and objective viewpoint throughout the whole of those hearings. What I have heard in the House just recently suggests a prejudiced mind about some issues in the bill before the hearings commence. On behalf of New Zealand First I caution that we are looking for an open, objective debate about the issues that pertain to the bill, and not a debate about prejudice past and present.

New Zealand First is pleased that the bill clarifies the issue—as has been clarified in other places, in the seabed and foreshore debate—of whether under New Zealand common law the foreshore and seabed are generally held to be under the Crown. In practice we know that the coastal marine area is generally perceived as public space with private occupation. At this time I assert again on behalf of New Zealand First, as has already been stated by a previous member of the House, that that use is a privilege rather than a right.

Having said that, I point out that we are very pleased to see that the Minister has taken into account the industry’s concerns with regard to existing use, in that this bill recognises that the coastal marine area has obviously been used and developed not just in recent years but over hundreds of years. When we start to look at the Māori component of this bill, as we in New Zealand First have done carefully, we see that the hundreds of years of use of our marine space is a highly relevant matter to consider, and I hope the submitters come with that in mind. Last Saturday I was at a meeting at ōākura with regard to a proposed marine reserve, and there was a very large gathering of coastal folk. One of the elders went back into the history of that district—not just this century, not just last century, but over several centuries—and detailed carefully, for people who wished to hear, how Māori had used that coast. In that proposal, the Department of Conservation has very rapacious hands with regard to the proposed marine reserve. The point I want to leave with the House is that there are people who, for generations past, have used this marine space and have knowledge of it. To say that there should be no recognition of that in the bill is a step that the select committee will have to think about very, very carefully.

We are pleased to see that the bill recognises the industry’s recognition of this phase-in period. The bill recognises that to the end of the present permit there is certainty. It also recognises that, provided the present permit-holder seeking a new consent is able to show—and I hope that the committee makes this very firm—compliance with the conditions of the permit, and provided that sound, current industry-good practice is being observed by the permit-holder, that person is given a prior right to occupy that space for a future consent term. As we know, most of these consents are for 35 years, and I hope that issue will be advanced as the consent term. Our party believes that if there is near-security for the present permit-holders, provided that they have complied with a new consent, then that is about all that even a 50-hectare consent-owner can reasonably expect as a right. I go back to my first principle, which is that the use of this space is a privilege not a right. We are very pleased to see that the bill has recognised that point.

Secondly, we are very pleased to see recognition of the fact that this industry has a chequered legislative history that goes back in time to the early days of the 1960s, up to the Marine Farming Act of 1971. As the Minister of Fisheries is here I want to address one problem to him that is not so obvious in the bill. All of the earlier permit-holders were granted permits by, first of all, the Ministry of Transport in some prehistoric day, then by the Minister of Fisheries, and in many of our regions there is a state of devastation and ill-care with regard to many of those consents. It is of very grave concern to us in the regions as to who will now be responsible for the clean-up of what were Government-directed consents or permits. I do not see any provision for that in the bill. While we in New Zealand First are very pleased to see that the ratepayer will not be burdened by extensive, costly, and lengthy plan changes, and that there is provision for the industry or for individual would-be consent-holders to pursue their own plan changes at their own cost—and we in Northland are very pleased to see that—there should also be some recognition that if the regional councils, in particular, implement those final plan changes, they will do so at some cost. As many of the regions have completed or are near the end of producing their coastal plans, that will be an added impost upon the ratepayer, for little personal benefit. Therefore, I come to the issue—which is also in the bill—of some of the benefits, with regard to the tendering and allocation of space. It may be that some further thought should be given to a more generous distribution initially, to meet the cost of clean-up and the cost of the period of transition. That is not directly addressed in the bill, and I hope the Minister has some awareness of it.

My having said that, we all know the importance of marine farming to our economy. Northland has the longest coastline of any region in this country, and we are very much aware of the value of, and the potential for, marine farming. We have been very concerned about dual issues in the past. We are very concerned that, with relatively large areas of coastal space now required for modern, economic marine farming, there is a consequent need to have those farms located, constructed, and managed so as to avoid and remedy any of the adverse environmental impacts that can, and do, occur. We are concerned that the bill provide for that.

Last of all, we in New Zealand First, having observed many Māori marine farmers from the North Cape to the Bluff manage by their own efforts over several decades, and at great personal cost to themselves and their families, to put together viable farming enterprises, do not believe that for some strange reason some group in Wellington—I think it is called Te Ohu Kai Moana—which is the inheritor of the Māori Fisheries Commission traditions, should now have the allocation of Māori space, should the bill deem that to be so. We strongly resent there being the same sort of process that Māori fisheries has had to undergo over the last 11 years. We very much hope the select committee will ensure that that Wellington-placed body, which has neither the knowledge nor the ability successfully to implement this allocation as from 1 January 2005, does not have that role. Therefore, to that degree, we see that particular part of the bill as being one requiring change.

We thank the Minister for getting the bill to this stage. We believe that the industry is ready to go. I know that some regions are ready to go. For that reason, not to proceed with the bill would be an economic injustice. We support this bill going to the select committee.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I wish to support the progress of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, and note particularly that greater powers will be given to the regional councils. I also particularly note that there is one word that is very, very important—that is, the word “sustainability”—and that the regional councils will be the agencies responsible for environmental effects. I look forward to greater involvement of not only my own regional council but all regional councils around New Zealand, in this regard. I remind people that elections for regional councils are coming up. In those regions that have considerable coastlines, people might like to take into account whether those they are voting for have some knowledge in this area.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 83

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

Noes 37

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Māori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a first time.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I move, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 29 November 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 46

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Māori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

Instruction to Committee

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I must say that two things came as a surprise to the National Party. One was that the vote on this bill was actually lost at the Primary Production Committee. That means that the Government, which has the majority in Parliament and can win at any stage through the voting process, actually managed to drop the ball at the select committee, and lost the vote. How did it do that? The Government has 51 members. It has the Greens and the United Future lapdogs, who are barking and panting around it. How could the Government have lost the vote on the bill at the select committee? The second point that intrigues National is that Supplementary Order Paper 246—and I know that Nick Smith will be interested in this, so I tell him that the bill itself is 32 pages long, without including the schedules—which corrects the mistakes the Government has made is 17 pages long. The Supplementary Order Paper with the amendments to the bill is half as long again as the original bill. Is it any wonder that the National Party, the ACT party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First party reluctantly held hands and voted against the Labour Government?

One major issue that we had, and I would like the Minister to address it, is the idea that he is to put highly migratory species such as tuna, skipjack tuna, and all the other highly migratory species into the quota management system. Those species swim all around the world, and are hammered by other nations. We only catch somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of them. They spend very little time in New Zealand waters, yet the Minister wants to put them into the quota management system. I have a publication by his own officials called The Bite, which is a good title because that publication will bite the Minister’s backside right now. The publication states: “One country can’t sit out on its own pretending to manage a stock that spends only a small portion of its life in its fisheries waters.”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who wrote that?

PHIL HEATLEY: The Ministry of Fisheries. The Minister should know that New Zealand has the ability to have regional and international agreements on the management of tuna species around the world, and in the Pacific and the South Pacific. He should get together with the Australians, the Koreans, and every other fishing nation to try to manage that fishery. He should not try to stop New Zealand fishers either from fishing in New Zealand waters or from fishing on the high seas or in other countries’ waters, by capping them and giving them a handicap—so to speak—against other fishing companies. He should not try to manage the issue in that way. It is absolutely absurd.

We want to hear from the Minister as to how he will fix that particular problem. Why is the Minister creating the potential to put highly migratory species into the quota management system? Why is he proposing a trigger clause, when he should not even put those species into the quota management system at all? Why does he not just get together with other South Pacific nations and manage the stock of those species sensibly? We ask the Minister those questions, and we invite the Minister to tell the Committee how he proposes to address that particular problem. His own ministry states in its publication The Bite, which is a glossy, taxpayer-funded publication, that that is an absurd thing to do. I am surprised that the publication does not have a lovely photo of the Minister in it. That publication states that it is absolutely absurd to pretend to manage a stock that spends only a small portion of its life in New Zealand’s fisheries waters. Would the Minister please address that particular problem, tell us about the deal he has done, and tell us where in Supplementary Order Paper 246 he has addressed that particular issue and fixed the problem. That is what we want to hear from the Minister. After that, we would like him to address other issues, particularly concerning new schedule 4C, to be inserted in the principal Act by schedule 1 of the bill, where he has dreamed up a list of other fish species that he wants to put into the quota management system.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): As this legislation goes through the Committee stage members need to understand that in the last few days a substantial Supplementary Order Paper, No. 246, was tabled in the House, and that effectively, it guts one of the most controversial parts of the legislation. Today in the House I moved that that particular Supplementary Order Paper go back to the Primary Production Committee, in order for that committee to examine it quickly and report back to the House within a couple of weeks. That would not have delayed the passing of the legislation significantly, at all. The Minister—David Benson-Pope—and Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, denied leave of the House for that Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee. We wanted to have a chance to examine the content of one of the most substantial Supplementary Order Papers that have ever been tabled in this House, and that was denied by the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance because they did not want it to be scrutinised.

Those Ministers know that Supplementary Order Paper 246 is about as big a mess as the original bill was. They know that if this legislation is scrutinised they will go through the same embarrassment they went through at the select committee, when the select committee worked on a Government bill in very good faith, to try to tidy it up, and, as Doug Woolerton said, did its bit very, very well. We were bogged down because the legislation was such a mess, and I personally asked the Minister for the committee to be given another week, as we might then have been able to make something out of that very messy legislation. He denied us the opportunity to have a week’s extension and the legislation went back to the House, but only after it had been lost at the select committee. The Government was done over with regard to its own legislation in the select committee, because it was such a mess. What was then amazing was that when the legislation went back into the House, the Green member Ian Ewen-Street appeared to have a change of heart. I think that was because the Supplementary Order Paper has a clause that, effectively, would undo the whole issue about the highly migratory species.

What the National Party argued was this: why should we put fish that are caught outside New Zealand territorial limits into the quota management system, when there is no need to do so? The Minister argued that in the future the Government may negotiate a regional fisheries management plan, which may be the solution for the sustainability of those species. We were told it would be 5 to 10, or maybe 15, years before that happens, and that is why the National Party opposed the bill. The sneaky Supplementary Order Paper effectively achieves that. It passes the legislation in substantive order—it gives the ability to put those species into the quota management system—and then curtails the Minister’s ability to do that because there are no regional fisheries management plans in existence as we speak, so the species cannot come in.

Why is that important? The reason it is important, of course, is that here is another opportunity for Māori to claim 20 percent of the quota for highly migratory species caught by New Zealand operators off the coast of Fiji. That is what Larry Baldock, the United Future spokesperson, will be supporting if he votes for this legislation, and that is what Ian Ewen-Street, as a member of the Green Party, will be supporting if the Greens vote for it. We have had various interpretations of the 1992 deed of settlement, but I just refer members to clause 4.2, which quite specifically states that Māori endorse the quota management system and acknowledge it is a lawful and an appropriate regime for the sustainable management of commercial fishing in New Zealand—in New Zealand. The quota management system was always for New Zealand territorial waters—the 200-mile limit. It was never envisaged that the quota management system would be extended by the Ministry of Fisheries to international waters and, more significantly, if that was to occur, that Māori would suddenly have a claim extending well past New Zealand’s economic zone and into the waters of foreign countries.

This legislation is an absolute outrage. The Supplementary Order Paper is an outrage, and the Minister should either stand and take the opportunity to answer the questions that are raised or allow the Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee, so that it can be adequately examined.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Let me just tell the National Party why it is that the House is having an argument on the issue of Māori obtaining quota in the international zone beyond the 200-mile limit. That is not a policy that I believe in, and it is not a policy that New Zealand First supports, but I want to remind the National Party who was responsible for this debacle coming about, so that if there should be a discovery in the Ross Sea Dependency, in respect of a fishing resource, then, automatically, the National Government would have conveyed and transported to the Māori people the right of 20 percent.

Hon David Carter: That’s rubbish.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it is not rubbish and I will tell the member why. I was here at the time, and I can recall that it was October—

Hon David Carter: You voted for it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did not vote for it. There we go! There is the National Party at its worst. They do not know anything about history. They refuse to face the facts. They have their blood and DNA and fingerprints all over the issue, as culpable and as guilty as one can get, and they stand around saying: “But it wasn’t me!” Who was it that came into the House when Doug Graham was the Minister in charge of Waitangi settlements in October of 1992 and passed the Sealord’s deal? It was all these gentlemen behind me here, all these National Party guys—and if they were not here they were electorate chairmen saying: “Good on you, Doug. Go for it.” [Interruption] We can tell from the voluminous noise that they are as guilty as sin.

Hon David Carter: You were in the National Party then.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no! They cannot blame Winston Peters, and they cannot blame New Zealand First, because, unlike every other member of Parliament, Labour and National, one member refused to support it, and that is the member who is speaking right now. And what happened the next day? Well, having pointed out the fallacy of having no mandate to do what they were doing, either on the Māori or the European side, having no consultation, no proper process, they went ahead regardless, and the next day they expelled me from the National Party caucus.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Good job.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See what I mean? Here sit these people; they get up and they make all these speeches on things like the Waitangi Tribunal, the Waitangi industry, law and order, and immigration, and now on fishing, of all things, and, having written the whole criteria, they stand here and make these empty, hollow, shallow, baseless speeches and expect good honest New Zealanders to believe them.

I have been in politics a while—not long enough, obviously—but I have been in politics a while and I have seen some examples of impertinence, cheek, and gall, but that last speech beats them all. That speech made by Mr Heatley before that beats all, does it not? Mind you, I heard him telling the people up in Whangarei that he believed that kahawai should go into the quota management system. That is what he said. This morning I found he has done a somersault. Even though he sent out 5,000 letters saying where he stood, apparently with the National Party we cannot be certain. It all depends on what time of the month it is, or what month it is. This was only 6 weeks ago. I was there. I could not believe what he said. But, anyway, he has done a somersault. But I go back to my point. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Unlike other parties, our consistent position is—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is this the scampi man—more scampi?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I say this to the member: “Go outside and say it and I’ll sue you, too, sunshine.” Oh, yes! He can go outside and join his mates David Carter and Ken Shirley. I am very happy—I do not care how many smart alecs I have to face. We will do them all. [Interruption] He is always in court but he never wins.

Hon David Carter: Where’s the 300 grand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: David Carter is not going to win. I tell the member that if he wins I will resign. But he will not. He will be screaming out for mercy and so will his lawyers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member will come back to the part.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where did Ross put the money?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When did Ross put a paper bag over the member’s head? I do not know, but he should have kept it there.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us where Ross put the money.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is amazing is it not? Those members make accusations inside the House, and in the same way, I can remember them all saying: “Winston, what if it all works out? What are you going to say, Winston, when it all works out?”. What I am saying today is what I said back then. It will not work out, and it is not working out, and we do not support it today.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The previous speaker blew his credibility, on any issue to do with fishing, over the fiasco with scampi. I cannot believe the gall of the man—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you do me a favour and tell that very naive, inexperienced, and green member that the matter is now sub judice and if he wants to join the action, then he should go outside and open his mouth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that point. I ask members to confine themselves to Part 1 and matters related.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to respond to the pretty pathetic contribution we had from the member for Tauranga, and simply suggest that the member read page 18 where it refers to the deed of settlement in respect of fisheries, and in which the words are very clear that it is for the sustainable management of commercial fishing in New Zealand. The words “New Zealand” are there in black and white. The comments of that member are typical of him.

I want to talk about the Government’s record, and to say that Part 1 shows everything that is bad about this Government—firstly, its disrespect for Parliament and parliamentary process, and arrogance in its legislative agenda; and, secondly, its political correctness over both Māori issues and environmental issues. It is a constitutional disgrace that the Minister has tabled in this Chamber a 13-page Supplementary Order Paper that affects the property rights of people who are involved in one of the most important industries for New Zealand, without any opportunity for them to be able to comment. David Carter quite properly tabled a motion to refer the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee, but this Minister does not even have the courage of his convictions to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper, refer it to a select committee, and let democracy take its course.

I must say this issue involved one of the most appalling incidents I have seen, whereby a Government’s own bill was defeated by a select committee. I cannot recall, in my 14 years in the House, a new Minister face the humbling of a select committee that says: “Minister you’ve got it all wrong. You’ve stuffed it all up.” If I were the Minister I would have thrown in my warrant from day one. He need embarrass himself no further. In fact, I know of nothing this Minister has done in his role, since he has had his warrant, that he has not managed to stuff up—whether in respect of kahawai, this bill, the scampi issue, or the mess he is making of the Resource Management Act.

Then we come to the provisions in Part 1 dealing with highly migratory species. What sort of naive Minister do we have that he is going to stop good fishing companies from my electorate of Nelson being able to participate in those industries, when there is not an international agreement? Members on this side of the Chamber agree that New Zealand should sustainably manage those fisheries and work with those countries to get agreement, but it is just a nonsense to tie the hands of our fishermen, while we allow others to rape those particular highly migratory species. It is the sort of expectations we would have of the Green Party, not a Labour Party. Such is the incompetence that we have from this Minister.

Then we go into another dose of dripping political correctness in respect of Māori issues. How can it be that this Minister somehow believes that under the Treaty of Waitangi there is a right for Māori to 20 percent of quota for fisheries outside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone? That truly is naive. Whatever there might be, we are the Parliament of New Zealand. We should ensure in the legislation that we provide for no such nonsense, whether it is the Ross Sea of Antarctica or the fisheries to the north of New Zealand. Only a Labour Party that has gone to incredible extremes to placate Māori would possibly provide them with quota outside those areas. It is a nonsense. The provision should be removed from the bill.

Even the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper does not provide for changes in that respect, and that is a nonsense. It is a double dose of what we have seen with the Aquaculture Reform Bill, in which this Government is tossing huge wealth, away from ordinary New Zealanders, to Māori on the basis of ethnicity. That is one of the reasons this Government will be thrown out at the next election.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): Fundamentally this bill is about bringing new species into the quota management system, but so far I have not heard anybody query whether that is a good idea. I have heard Phil Heatley say that it is the best system, and maybe he is right, but certainly it is not the only system. I agree it is a useful tool, but it is just a tool in a tool-box. Why, for instance, do we give people the right in perpetuity—and I say “give” intentionally—to fish stocks that are worth, sometimes, tens of millions of dollars? The answer I often get when I ask the question about why we use that system, is that it gives, firstly, security to fishermen. But what about the fish? Secondly, it is said we can control what is caught. But what about security for the fish?

Brian Connell: Bet he kisses the pregnant ones.

Simon Power: What about houses for fish? [Interruption]

IAN EWEN-STREET: Land rights for gay whales! The idea that the quota management system actually gives security for the ministry to control the number of fish caught, is a fallacy. Indeed, the system is wide open to be rorted. The mechanism by which it could be rorted is that if fishermen want to catch fish—for example, a valuable species like orange roughy—they do not need a quota. But they do need a fisheries permit, and they can get a permit if they have a quota for 5 tonnes of any species.

So if I wanted to rort the system, I would get a fishing permit for sea snails, or something equally valuable, and charter a boat from overseas somewhere. I would come into New Zealand, trawl for sea snails, and accidentally catch 20 tonnes of orange roughy, scampi, or whatever it is that happens to be valuable. I would come into a New Zealand port, having done everything legally—I would have my fisheries permit—and I would have unfortunate by-catch. Pardon the pun. I have my permit, I land all of my fish, I get paid for them in the market, and now all I have to do is pay deemed value for the fish that I landed. So while the ministry is calculating the deemed value, I am in Baluchistan, or somewhere else. I have given my charter boat back and left the country. I have the money from selling my 20 tonnes of orange roughy, or whatever it is, and I have scarpered.

What sort of security does the quota management system give the fishery? It is not very good at all. I think the idea of giving people rights in perpetuity has been shown up in the land tenure debate we are having at the moment. In the past, Governments gave South Island high-country run holders the rights in perpetuity to lease Government land. Now we are having to buy it back. It is a system that did not work, and I maintain that the quota management system is a system that will have to be revisited in the future.

One of the debates we had in the select committee about this bill was about highly migratory species and taking fish from outside of New Zealand territorial waters. Most members seem to overlook the fact that high-seas fishing is the most energy intensive form of food production in the world. When fuel prices go up, the deep-sea fishers will be the first to go out of business. Yet we are trying to give these people quota on the basis of them rushing out into the high seas and catching as many fish as they possibly can now—to basically rape the fishery in order to get quota from outside our territorial waters. It is simply unsustainable. The quota management system is fine as a tool in a tool-box, but not as a mechanism on its own. I think we should look at the sustainability of the fishery over and above the administrative convenience of the officials of the ministry.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I will just take a quick moment to address a couple of small points brought up by Mr Ewen-Street about how bad the quota management system and rights in perpetuity are. I guess we should tell Mr Ewen-Street and his family that they should not have their freehold property in Christchurch—or wherever it is—in perpetuity. They should just lease it and give it back to the public every 20 or 30 years. We know what happens throughout the world when the security of property rights is ignored or constantly threatened by Governments. They dissolve, people do not care about them, and they do not look after them. The same applies to a property right under the quota management system. The fishers who have a property right under the quota management system are far more likely—it does not guarantee it; there are no guarantees for anything—to care for and ensure sustainability in the industry in which they have a major stake. It has been recognised worldwide—and I do not know how many times I have to say this—as the best system for ensuring sustainability. It is not about sustainability of the fishermen—or the fishers as the politically correct people like to call them—it is about sustaining the fish stock. That is the important point.

Is it perfect? No, of course, it is not perfect, but it is sure better than anything else. Until Mr Ewen-Street and the Greens come up with something better, it will continue.

I want to get on to the Committee stage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). It is, without question, the job of a select committee to tidy up a bill when it comes from the Minister and his ministry. I say again, as I have said many times, the Primary Production Committee is well known for working collaboratively to make sure that there is a sensible outcome. It took about 2 minutes, or even less, to look at this bill and realise that it was yet another dog’s breakfast from this ministry. It was an absolute disaster.

So the bill was essentially lost at sea. It was a case of “bill overboard”—the bill, and the nonsense of 20 percent of migratory species going to Māori, was tossed overboard into the South China Sea where it belongs. How on earth could the select committee countenance such abject nonsense that came from this Government? We have just debated the Aquaculture Reform Bill, where 20 percent of the resource is going to Māori. That is bad. It was wrong to do that. But this is just arrant nonsense. I suspect that Trevor Mallard had something to do with this. Has he not been appointed the Minister who ensures that things that might embarrass the Government do not get through? I suspect he had a little hand in this and said “Nod, nod, wink, wink, toss it overboard. Get rid of it as it will say to the public of this country that we are pandering to Māori again. It is the cargo cult again, so we will stop it.” So out it went.

But when the Supplementary Order Paper came in that effectively cancelled the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), the Primary Production Committee members had about 10 minutes to absorb it. It is a technical adjustment, but it is 17 pages long. Other members have talked about this already. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of 17 pages, when the entire bill was about 38 pages. Along with my colleague the chairman of the committee, David Carter, I sought leave of this House to send the Supplementary Order Paper back to the committee. That leave was denied—surprise, surprise. The Labour Government does not want to do the job properly. It just wants to flick it through, get it on the way, and never mind proper public consultation—just get it out of the way. Well, we are having to go through the Committee stage of this bill now, and I suspect that the bill will end up as yet another embarrassment for the Government. There will be more amendments.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I would like to direct my comments to two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that relate to Part 1. First, I will comment briefly on the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246, which is largely the result of some of the discussions I have had with him and with ministry officials since I was asked to try to sort out the mess left after the Primary Production Committee had had enough and had recommended that the bill be discharged. I agree with some of the comments that have been made by committee members that it is a large Supplementary Order Paper. It is something we ought to have the time to go through, particularly as it was tabled just this week. I hope the Minister will stand and take a call to answer some of the questions that have been put specifically about issues, because it is important that this is done correctly.

The other Supplementary Order Paper on the Table is mine. It seeks to withdraw kahawai from the quota management system for this year to give time for the ministry to do a better job of giving advice to the Minister regarding the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch levels that it has recommended occur on 1 October, which the Minister has accepted. This bill has always been about things the ministry has not done properly, right back from the time of the scampi issues and on through a myriad of others, where one thing has led to another and where people have been disenfranchised from their rights or kept out of their opportunities to gain rights. It was always said that once something had been done it was too late to fix it, so things just kept going on in the way they were. Today we have an opportunity to support my Supplementary Order Paper 247, and at least to pause with kahawai, so that we do this job right. The Supplementary Order Paper affects up to 300,000 recreational fishermen in the country, who are very concerned and who have made their concerns known through an email campaign of 1,900 emails, which I am sure other members in Parliament have also received.

It is clear from the advice that officials have given in their paper that they are not doing their job properly, yet again. Let me refer members to some of what they have said regarding the kahawai stock assessment: “While a stock assessment indicated that by 1996 the biomass of kahawai had declined to around 50 percent of its original level, it is unknown whether stocks are currently above or below the biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield.” They admit they know nothing about the science in this situation. They are having a guess, yet they confidently step up and try to assure the Minister that a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch will be sufficient to protect this fishery, which is of importance to recreational fishermen all across the country. They go on to say: “In gauging the required change in catch levels necessary to achieve any particular target level, the matter of a stock size is largely academic.” That is not the sort of advice we should be operating on when it comes to our fish stocks.

I have sought, by putting this Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, and by seeking support from other parties, that we at least pause for a year so that better science can be gathered and more negotiations entered into, in order for a better decision to be made. I appreciate the offers of support that I have had from other parties in Parliament. It is very disappointing that the ACT party is resolute in its ideology, and will not support this Supplementary Order Paper, because of what its members perceive to be the property rights of the commercial fishing sector. I think all of us want to respect those rights, but those rights have not been given yet. They are really there only as an expectation, because of the error that the Ministry of Fisheries made in allowing purse seine vessels to target schools of kahawai and plunder what is really a fish that belongs to the recreational fisherman. Any rights that commercial fishers perceive they own are taken at the expense of New Zealanders all across this country who have for many years enjoyed going out and catching kahawai. The advice that the officials have given the Minister requires not just a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch, which in reality ends up meaning commercial fishers end up catching more this year than they did last year—because the catch is averaged over 5 years—but the imposition of a 15 percent reduction on the recreational fisherman. The bag limit right now for kahawai is 20 fish, and there is not a fisherman in the country who has caught 20 fish, for years.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): The cameo performance of Winston Peters cannot go without some comment. He would have us believe—so easily he would have us believe—that he has spent very little time in the National Party. But when I look around at my colleagues now I see that, with the possible exception of one, Winston Peters has spent more time in the National Party than any other member presently in the Chamber. He might say his DNA is not all over some of these fisheries settlements, but he and I know better.

Let me turn my attention to the most hopeless Minister in the Cabinet, and that is Mr Benson-Pope, the one who is in the chair right at the moment. When I was coming down to the Chamber I thought I would pick up the bill and have a look at it. But then I came into the Chamber and saw his Supplementary Order Paper. It does not have just one page of changes; it does not have just two; it has 17 pages of changes, and that is absolutely outrageous. This Minister is so hopeless that he will not even get on his feet and talk about the amendments that he wants passed by this Committee. He is afraid of doing that; he will not get up and do it, because he does not understand them. He does not have the confidence of his officials—but I suppose I can hardly blame him for that, given their recent record.

But it gets worse. When the second reading was given and the bill was referred to the select committee, the Minister had the support of every party in the House. When the bill came out of the select committee, that support had been lost—not just the support of the National Party and the ACT members but that of the Greens as well. What does one have to do to lose the support of the Greens on this type of legislation? [Interruption] I do not know what it is, but it has to be a fair bit, as one of my colleagues has just volunteered. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Minister will not even get up, take a call, and explain what is taking place.

Now the Government wants us to put highly migratory species into the quota management system. Well, foreign fishers sitting out on the next wave with their gaffs in their hands must be saying: “You guys are an absolute joke. These fish might be in your waters for 5 minutes or so, but then they are out on the open freeway,”—so to speak—“and we will take as many as we like.” How stupid can the Government get? This bill penalises the fishers of this country, and this Minister knows it. That is why the support for the bill was lost in the select committee.

It gets worse. The Minister’s own party members on that select committee are so embarrassed that they will not even take a call today to try to defend the measure, and this Minister is completely out of his depth and will not do it. It gets worse. National is particularly concerned that what the Government is trying to do now is entirely premature. There is no international, or even regional, convention of putting these species into some form of quota system, so why would one do it before all one’s major competitors do it, unless one did not understand what was taking place? That is the issue at heart. This Minister is so hopeless that he cannot even get his head round that particular issue.

If we are to go down this track, we might expect that some of these fish are in danger, but they are not—they are absolutely not in danger, at all. Skipjack, I understand, exists in huge numbers across the globe, but this Minister, because of some feel-good reason, wants to put it into some sort of quota management system. Well, it is worse than stupid; it is just incompetent. Imagine a fishery off Chile, where fishers say: “Well, I can’t take this number of fish today, because it might upset the Kiwis. They have a Minister of Fisheries over there, David Benson-Pope, who said we can’t take these fish because they are not in our quota management system.”!

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): I move, That the question be now put.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The reality is that this bill will be passed through Parliament unless the Green Party and United Future come to their senses. If they do come to their senses, then this bill will not proceed, and we will have time to consider its serious and dramatic flaws.

I have had a chance to look at the legal opinion provided by the Minister of Fisheries to me. I was told he had two legal opinions, but he has not; he has one from the same man—twice. Well, the day the courts of this country believe that the 1992 settlement was envisioned by Māori at that time to include the zone beyond the exclusive economic zone, it is high time we start changing our judges. What the Minister is saying is even if we got a contract off Chile, for example, nevertheless the Māori people—whether or not they invested one cent—would gain 20 percent. Surely, the Māori people are not so unfair that they think that is right. I do not know of any sane, rational, fair Māori who thinks that is fair, bearing in mind that the Māori Fisheries Commission has hundreds of millions of dollars and could join our New Zealand fishing companies now, make an investment, and gain its 20 or 30 percent that way. That is the honest and fair thing to do, and why we are facilitating these sorts of demands is beyond me.

More important, why did the Minister not go and get a second or third legal opinion from some Queen’s counsel down town on whose academic expertise we could more rely?

Hon David Benson-Pope: We have got three.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if he has three, where are they? I have only two legal opinions here, written by the same man.

Hon David Benson-Pope: They say the same thing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, they say the same thing. Well, if they say the same thing, why have we not seen them all. Why are we not privy to all the legal opinions that say that? But can he show me the Māori who says that 20 percent of the Ross Sea Dependency resource is owned by Māori? Many years ago I said that, in a statement I made at the time, and I got a letter from a Māori who said: “Well, in our mythology one of our waka went down there.”—and that is a fact. It is one thing for Māori to make fair claims—

Brian Connell: What’s his name?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What is his name? It was such a long time ago. I threw the letter in the round filing basket, as I was so disgusted with it. But it is in the name of Māori that many of these claims are being made. My message to the Māori people is to ask how it benefits them if this sort of baseless claim is allowed to be promoted by a Government that is in trouble because it does not understand the Māori people, and whose members have not been doing their work around the Māori rohe, and, as a consequence, seek to sneak this bill through Parliament and somehow ingratiate themselves with the whānau and the brothers back home. Mr Tamihere knows full well what I am saying; the Māori people are sick and tired of members who are lions on marae and lambs in Parliament—and this bill will not save them.

There is a significant injustice here. Why should a fishing company take the risk of capitalising into boats and of putting men offshore in a very, very high-risk environment if, no matter what it gains by way of quota history, 20 percent automatically goes to Māori? Let me ask the Greens this: where do they think Māoridom is going, if that is a fair policy? What do they think they are doing for the Māori people if they advocate that? And what about United Future, of all parties? Where in the family doctrine of United Future does it state that it is right to treat one member of the family differently from the other? Where is that doctrine? Why do we have it in respect of this legislation?

The other thing I want to ask very clearly is where the Ministry of Fisheries gained the idea that green-lipped mussel spat is to be found only in the far north. Where did it get that idea from? Nine people will become the exclusive owners—from now on, in perpetuity, it seems—of that resource. Where on earth did it get that idea? Where is the scientific evidence? Do all those spat that I have been seeing on the beach at places like Whananaki and Whangaruru get there by some sort of mistake?

R Doug Woolerton: Are they yours?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is what I said: are those ours, or are we to allow others to take what is a resource and develop it into something huge? I know, for a start, that if we allowed aquaculture off the coast of the Bay of Plenty, 20,000 tonnes of spat could be harvested per year and 400 people could be employed.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): It has been interesting to listen to the contribution from a number of members today. One thing that has been absolutely fascinating to note is that even though we have the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, we have not heard a single peep from the Minister. The document is so thick, in so many different ways, that that ensures it will never be read—that is for sure. By virtue of the very eloquence of that Supplementary Order Paper, in terms of how thick it is and what it is trying to achieve, it will never ever be read. That is one thing we can be sure of.

It has also been interesting to listen to a number of the other speakers who have made a contribution. I refer in particular to the Green member, who absolutely opposed the process right through the select committee stage in the Primary Production Committee, and who has come to the Chamber now and been bought off. I have gone through the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper 246 and I cannot find the bit that is so particularly good for the Green member. I hope somebody will take a call and explain why the Green member has been bought off with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for that is bound to be in there somewhere. The chairman of the select committee cannot find it. Someone will know where it is, but I cannot find it in that Supplementary Order Paper, at all.

R Doug Woolerton: It’s not there.

SHANE ARDERN: I agree that that is probably so. The Green member also touched a bit on the issue of by-catch. We know that the member himself became a victim of by-catch in the select committee, and we all hoped that that might help to eliminate the migratory species that are going up his tie and frightening most people in the Chamber. But that has not worked; even that has failed.

I ask the Minister to take a call and answer some of the very important questions that have been put to him by a number of speakers. The last speaker, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, put a range of questions to the Minister, and not one of them has been answered. I want to know how a migratory species can be introduced into the quota management system, and how that will be managed off the coast of Brazil by a New Zealand Minister called David Benson-Pope. How will that happen? Somebody needs to explain that. The previous member spoke about how 20 percent of the quota for those species, once it has been established, can then be allocated to Māori. National wants to know how that will work. The Minister needs to answer those questions today, because a lot of other people want to know the answers to them, as well.

I also want the Minister to answer this basic question: given that a number of people, right at this moment, are contemplating making an investment in what is an up to $1.5 billion export industry in this country, how can they make that investment with any degree of certainty, whatsoever? The Minister is basically saying to those people that they simply cannot do that. He does not consider the industry to be important enough to be given the proper amount of time, through the proper parliamentary process, so that those people can go out and risk their capital and their lives—as is often the case out on the fishing boats. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that he should go out on a fishing boat one day, and look at the physical kind of environment that those people work in. Why can the Minister not show the decency towards those people of putting this legislation through the correct select committee process? He is just abusing the process. Many people have sought leave to send Supplementary Order Paper 246 back to the select committee, so that the very people who are involved in this industry and risking their capital can come to Parliament and tell the Minister what they find wrong with the process on this legislation. Will he do that? Not at all. It is absolutely amazing.

We have a minority Labour Government that is propped up by a few lackeys—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

SHANE ARDERN:—and it will not support the very people it purports to represent. It will not support them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. In the interests of parliamentary decorum, whilst one may call certain parties “doormats”, “carpetbags”, and what have you, I think the word “lackey” has been ruled out. Therefore, I think the member should choose his words carefully and not persist in that line. But to say “doormat” is OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I did call for order, but the speaker did not turn back to the Chair. I ask Mr Ardern to please withdraw that comment; it is not acceptable in the Chamber.

Simon Power: The Rt Hon Winston Peters raises an interesting dilemma for members. If the word “lackey” is to be ruled out, could the Chair confirm, as Mr Peters asserts, that the word “doormat” is fine?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If anyone uses either “lackey” or “doormat” in reference to either a member or a party, I will rule it out. It depends on the context that those words are used in.

Phil Heatley: What about “lapdog”?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): With regard to anything like that, it will be a matter of my judgment. Mr Ardern used “lackey”, and he will withdraw that. I ask him to please withdraw.

SHANE ARDERN: I withdraw. I was saying to those parties in the Chamber whose support is very cheap and can be bought without very much substance at all, that they should stop for a moment and think about what is being done to the very people they purport to represent in this Parliament. Those people will definitely not be happy with the process on this legislation, and those parties should just think about that.

I also say to the Government members, who are supporting this parliamentary process, that they are abusing it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I know that this is the procedure during question time, but Committee time is also pretty important. The Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, has indicated that there is a third legal opinion in existence; he said that he has three legal opinions. That being the case, I seek leave to ask the Minister whether he will provide us with that legal opinion. If he has it, then we are entitled to see it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Any member may seek leave for anything. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The point raised now by the Hon Winston Peters raises in my mind a very serious constitutional issue about the way in which this Minister of Fisheries has treated the Primary Production Committee. I refer to the issue of the legality of our requiring 20 percent of the quota for species caught outside New Zealand to go to Māori. One of the first things the select committee asked for was a legal opinion. From memory, we asked the Minister, through his ministry officials, for legal opinions. We got one legal opinion dated 9 May 2003—

Hon David Benson-Pope: From Crown Law.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister interjects, so he is still awake. The opinion is from Crown Law. It is signed by a Mr Craig Linkhorn, Crown counsel, but what Mr Peters may not be aware of, and what the Committee needs to know, is that the Minister and his officials deleted great portions throughout it. In other words, the actual legal opinion was not given to the select committee, and to this day that has not been done. That is absolutely outrageous. For the Minister then to say he is sitting on two other legal opinions that he was not prepared to give to the select committee so that it could examine the legality of the issue leaves me with only one conclusion: the other two legal opinions probably have a very contrary view to the very shallow, partially deleted legal opinion from the Crown Law Office. That is the only possible conclusion as to why the Minister and his officials clearly tried to pervert the select committee process and did not give the members the opportunity to consider legal advice as to the legality of this issue.

R Doug Woolerton: We’re being kept in the dark!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Absolutely. The select committee was kept in the dark. We now know from the Minister’s interjection—he is not prepared to take a proper call, but he chips in—that there are three legal opinions in existence. Yet all that the select committee was given was one legal opinion with a number of large deletions throughout it, so we could not form an opinion as to the legality of this issue. It is an absolute outrage that the Minister suggests that Parliament pass legislation that gives Māori 20 percent of species caught outside New Zealand territorial limits by New Zealand fishers, but he is not prepared to let us have a look at the legal opinion that justifies that.

Hon David Benson-Pope: It says the same thing.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Now he says the second and third legal opinions say the same thing. If that is so, he should give them to the select committee. Why hide them? I might add that the first opinion had so many heavy deletions in it that the select committee was unable to form a view as to what the opinion stated. The Minister should take a call and allow the Committee of the whole House to have a look at those opinions.

I can only assume he is hiding those legal opinions for one reason, and one reason only—that is, he knows that this measure has no legality. It is another sop to Māori, an attempt to settle the issue around the seabed and foreshore. That is what is going on here. New Zealand fishers who catch tuna and albacore on the high seas are now being asked to pay up and front up with 20 percent of their hard work, to be given to Māori so that the Labour Government can buy favour with Māori. The Minister shakes his head and denies it. He should take a call. He should not sit there like a dork. He should take a call and answer the questions that have been raised.

I want to move to another point. The select committee was concerned at three specific submissions, one from Westhaven Shellfish, one from Sea-Right Investments, and one from the cockle industry. I know that Mr Ian Ewen-Street said in his contribution earlier this week that the Minister had given his word that those issues, which were of concern to the whole of the select committee, would be addressed by his Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Minister that I cannot see where that happens in the Supplementary Order Paper, and therefore I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us how it addresses the issue of Westhaven Shellfish, which has had an argument with the ministry for years, has won in court, and claims that this bill overrides its rights. I ask the Minister to tell us how the case of Sea-Right Investments, which is in the same situation, is fixed by this law.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I wish to address the amendment moved by Larry Baldock on the question of kahawhai. I agree with the substance of what he said about the kahawhai fishery. It has been Green policy for many years that kahawhai should be managed as a recreational-only species, because it has so much greater value as a recreational species than it does as bait, which is what much of the commercial catch is used for. There should, however, be just enough commercial quota to cover the inevitable by-catch so that that is properly accounted for, but kahawai should not be targeted. I have had hundreds of emails from recreational fishers, thanking me for the position that the Greens have taken on that for years. They are convinced that the stocks are declining, that they are harder to catch, and they blame the purse-seine boats that have been scooping them up. I discussed that issue with the former Minister, and I thought at the time that he agreed that that was how kahawai should be dealt with. So I was quite disturbed to find that when kahawhai went into the quota management system the quota issues were based on commercial catch history, just like any other fishery.

The fact is that kawhai are not in this bill, and the amendment is not in any way related to this bill. Kawhai are already in the quota management system. I was quite intrigued to see how Larry Baldock would fix the situation through an amendment to this bill. When I saw the wording of the amendment I could not support it, because it would not actually fix the situation for the recreational fishers but it would make it worse. I also cannot support a process whereby a party withdraws support for a bill it fundamentally accepts, in order to get an amendment that has nothing to do with the bill. That kind of horse-trading does not work around this place, and we have always refused to trade between issues in that way.

The fact is that the Minister is constrained by law. Once a species is in the quota management system, he has to make decisions that are based on scientific information that can be challenged in court. As Larry Baldock himself said, we have a great paucity of information about kahawhai stocks and about kahawhai catches. I have talked with the Minister today, and I have a personal undertaking from him that $1 million will be put into getting good information on the kahawhai fishery over 1 more year, at which stage the quota will be reassessed—not after 3 to 5 years, but after 1 year—and that if there has been no recovery in the stock, then the commercial quota will be reduced in order to protect the recreational catch. At this stage there is no other way that that can be done.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I am sorry.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to draw to your attention that we have before us a Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled on Tuesday of this week, which includes 11 pages of amendments. These are not amendments that have been considered by the select committee. They are amendments that affect a large—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand that. The time has come for me to leave the Chair to report progress, and I must do that.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.