Thursday, 11 April 2013
Volume 689
Sitting date: 11 April 2013
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 16 April the Government will look to progress the Immigration Amendment Bill, the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, and the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. On Wednesday, 17 April—effectively Thursday, 18 April—with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will have extended hours for the second reading and the Committee stages of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill and the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. On Thursday afternoon the House will hold a debate on Pacific issues. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Has the Leader of the House had any indication from the Prime Minister as to the timing of the proposed new security legislation?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The Prime Minister will want to discuss that with other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that there can be a general comfort that the issues that need to be covered are covered in those bills.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Budget 2013—Focus
1. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of Budget 2013, and how will it help meet the priorities the Government has set for this term?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget will be the next step in the Government’s longer-term programme, started when it was elected, to make the economy more adaptable, more sustainable, and more competitive. We will continue to work hard to get back to surplus and stop Government debt rising. We will continue with economic reforms to make the economy more competitive, to steadily improve public services despite tight fiscal constraints, and to ensure that Christchurch recovers from the earthquake. What we are doing is well signalled and predictable, and there will be no big surprises in the Budget.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What approach will the Budget take to building the growth required to support more jobs and higher incomes in the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will focus on encouraging long-term investment by the private sector, and investment particularly in new jobs. Of course, it will continue the path of the Government improving the effectiveness of its own investment for public services and for the wider economy. Through the Business Growth Agenda we have identified the ingredients needed for businesses to invest and grow to support more jobs and higher incomes, and the Government will build on these. It will also reconfirm the Government’s commitment to conventional monetary policy, predictable fiscal policy, and a sound financial system.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What progress will the Budget report in meeting the Government’s target of returning to fiscal surplus in 2014-15?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm that the updated forecast will show that the Government remains on track to surplus in 2014-15. This is a considerable achievement, given the forecasts of never-ending deficits and ever-rising debt that we inherited. Just 2 years ago, the deficit was $18.4 billion, about half of which was the cost of contributing to the rebuild of Christchurch. As a result of Government decisions since Budget 2009 we will have reduced the Government’s need to borrow compared with the policies we inherited by $30 billion by 2016-17, and by 2015 what was forecast expenditure back in 2008 of $83 billion for that year will actually be only $73 billion. So the accumulation of our budgetary decisions has been to knock $10 billion out of Government expenditure for 2015.
Dr Paul Hutchison: After returning to surplus, what will be the Government’s main fiscal priorities?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves, but this is a Government with a long-term vision for New Zealand. Beyond the return to surplus, we will need to shift our focus towards using those forecast surpluses to achieve our second fiscal objective, which is reducing Government net debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. We will be doing this in the context of choices between paying off debt, topping up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or further spending on improving public services. But 20 percent of GDP net debt is a level that the Government considers to be prudent, which would help us to get ready to weather the next storm in the global economy.
Mining in Conservation Areas—Permits for Schedule 4 Areas
2. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the changes to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 proposed in the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill allow for exploratory drilling in Schedule 4 areas?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, but the changes do not go further than what is already contained in the existing law. Also, there is a significant difference between work under prospecting and exploration activity and permits, and mining activities and permits. The Government is clear that schedule 4 is a no go for mining.
Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am unclear. My question was in regards to drilling in schedule 4 areas. I am unclear whether the Minister has confirmed there will be drilling, which was the question on notice.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister started his answer with “Yes,” and then clarified.
Catherine Delahunty: Why has the Government granted mineral exploration permit 52722, which has no practical value because it allows for drilling in schedule 4 areas, which is currently illegal?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not know the position in relation to that specific permit, but what is very clear is that there is a range of reasons, short of mining, why you would have prospecting and exploration permits, including understanding the general geological layout of the land and understanding what is happening in a river upstream to understand what is happening downstream. So there is a range of reasons short of mining.
Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a legal opinion from Adderley Head to my office, which shows that permit 52722 cannot currently be exercised, because it allows for drilling in schedule 4 areas, which is currently illegal.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that legal opinion. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Catherine Delahunty: Given that our legal opinion says that permit 52722 has a work programme that is illegal to implement, will he withdraw the permit or amend its work programme to prevent drilling in schedule 4?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, if the member did me the courtesy of showing me that opinion, we might be able to have a bit more of an informed discussion. But I think what is very clear is that prospecting and exploration permits do allow for drilling, but that is quite different from drilling for mining purposes, which we have a policy against.
Catherine Delahunty: So is the Government changing the Crown Minerals Act so that Hawkeswood Civil Ltd, which is the owner of this permit, can now undertake drilling in an area under schedule 4 protection?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. If the member had listened to my first answer, what is very clear is that in relation to the things she is asking about, there is no material change between the current law and the new law.
Catherine Delahunty: Has the Minister made it clear to companies that they can look but not touch in schedule 4; if so, why has the director of Sea Group Holdings Ltd said it is prospecting with an eye to dredging in McGregor Bay, which is under schedule 4 protection?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, companies can say whatever they like, but it is the Government that makes policy and makes the decisions.
Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether he has made it clear to these companies.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the question was very adequately addressed in light of the question. The member has further supplementary questions.
Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister still think that the Government has made it clear to mining companies that they can look but not touch in schedule 4, given that the Broken Hills Gold Company has applied for a mining permit on schedule 4 land?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not think there is any ambiguity in our policy. Let me say again that we have a very clear view against mining on schedule 4 land.
Catherine Delahunty: In the light of what he has just said, will he then decline the application by Broken Hills Gold Company Ltd for a mining permit on schedule 4 land in the Coromandel?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Look, it is not appropriate for me to give an answer on an open application. The policy is very clear: we say no to mining on schedule 4 land.
Catherine Delahunty: Will he rule out granting mining permits for all the areas listed in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act for which minerals prospecting and exploration permits have already been granted, such as the areas covered by the permits held by Sea Group Holdings Ltd and Hawkeswood Civil Ltd? Will he rule them out?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, as I have said now a number of times, there is quite a difference between prospecting and exploration permits, where the law does permit that, and there is a range of reasons for doing that short of mining. But we say no to mining on schedule 4 land.
Government Communications Security Bureau—Dotcom Case and Ministerial Certificate
3. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Did the acting Prime Minister inform him that he had signed a Ministerial certificate suppressing details of the involvement of the GCSB in Operation Debut when he returned from his overseas trip in August 2012; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): As I previously told the House, I think some time last year, the Acting Prime Minister did not inform the Prime Minister’s office or him that he had signed the certificate, because he rightly thought that the Government Communications Security Bureau would inform his office or him. However, it failed to do so.
Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that in his 4 years as the Minister responsible for the GCSB, the ministerial certificate signed by the Acting Prime Minister was the only such certificate signed in that time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, but of course I would not expect the Deputy Prime Minister to know that, because he is not involved in those processes.
Grant Robertson: Why did the Government Communications Security Bureau director Ian Fletcher not raise the issue of the ministerial certificate that the Acting Prime Minister had signed at their meeting on 22 August, only 5 days after the Acting Prime Minister signed it?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I simply was not at the meeting, so I cannot answer that question.
Grant Robertson: Does he stand by his statement that the Acting Prime Minister—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! It is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I ask you to reflect on the answer that we have just got. It took me a little while to work my way through it. The Prime Minister cannot say he was not at a meeting that he was at. He said: “On behalf of the Prime Minister, I was not at the meeting.” The Prime Minister was at the meeting. That is the whole point. He had a meeting with Mr Fletcher.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure if the question was asked again, the Acting Prime Minister would deal with it adequately. The point is that he did say that he was unable to answer as Acting Prime Minister because he was not at the meeting.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the way forward is the question will be asked again.
Grant Robertson: Why did the Government Communications Security Bureau director Ian Fletcher not raise the issue of the ministerial certificate the Acting Prime Minister had signed with him at their meeting on 22 August, only 5 days after the Acting Prime Minister signed it?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister, because although he was at the meeting, I was not.
Andrew Williams: Given that Mr English, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated on 3 News on 3 October 2012: “I assumed the intelligence agencies would be informing the Prime Minister about their activities.”, how can we believe that the Prime Minister did not have foreknowledge of that certificate?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think the member has any grounds to make that assumption or not make that assumption. He would have to direct that question to the Prime Minister in person.
Grant Robertson: Given that he has stated that this was the only ministerial certificate signed in his time as Minister responsible for the GCSB and that he thinks the bureau should have told him about the certificate, has he asked the bureau director, Ian Fletcher, for an apology?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: These matters have been discussed extensively and assertively.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question. It did have a preface about statements that the Prime Minister had made, but it—
Mr SPEAKER: Let us have the question again.
Grant Robertson: It was not written down.
Mr SPEAKER: I might be able to help.
Grant Robertson: The end point of the question was: has he asked Mr Fletcher for an apology, given that it was a ministerial certificate, which had never been done before in 4 years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said before, these matters have been discussed extensively and assertively to my knowledge. Again, you would have to ask the Prime Minister in person the question about—
Hon Trevor Mallard: You are the Prime Minister.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, yes, but I can answer the question only if I have the knowledge and, actually, in my capacity as acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, I do not have that knowledge. You would have to direct the question to him.
Andrew Williams: What led the Acting Prime Minister to believe that the Government Communications Security Bureau had briefed the Prime Minister?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think the Deputy Prime Minister has said publicly, he assumed that because the intelligence agencies met regularly with the Prime Minister they would be advising him of any higher-profile procedure or policy matter that came before him. On reflection, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister would have been better not to have made that assumption.
Grant Robertson: In light of what he described as a “red flag” about illegal spying being given to him in July—that the status of Mr Dotcom’s residency had been discussed in the High Court in August—does he consider that the Government Communications Security Bureau director Ian Fletcher fulfilled his duty to him in not briefing him about the case?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Fletcher has fulfilled his duties in respect of uncovering and dealing with a culture of low compliance in the organisation. As outlined in the Kitteridge report, this would be one example where the bureau could have acted more thoroughly in its relationship with the Prime Minister, and I am sure—in fact, I can tell you the Prime Minister has made that view clear to it.
Grant Robertson: Has the Deputy Prime Minister apologised to the Prime Minister for not briefing him about a ministerial certificate the like of which had never been signed in his 4 years as Minister?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, but those discussions have also included the necessity to deal with aspects of the way the intelligence agencies operated, which meant, in this case, that the Minister in charge of the agency was not informed, as he should have been, on a matter of some importance.
Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from Simpson Grierson lawyers dated 15 August 2012 to Ian Fletcher, the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau, seeking information held by the bureau about Kim Dotcom and three associates.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the Government Communications Security Bureau director, Ian Fletcher, to Simpson Grierson lawyers, declining that request but acknowledging that information was held about Mr Dotcom by the bureau, dated 16 August 2012.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that response letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Children’s Action Plan—Children’s Teams
4. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has been made on the Children’s Action Plan, and how is this making a difference for vulnerable children?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Significant progress across the board on all initiatives, but progress at both Rotorua and Whangarei on the local children’s teams has been particularly interesting and pleasing. The local design approach has seen workshops involving communities, NGOs such as Family Start, Whānau Ora, and private social work providers. It has included iwi and Government agency representatives. These workshops are at the heart of creating a truly localised children’s team.
Melissa Lee: When will these children’s teams be operationalised by?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first children’s team will go live in Rotorua on 1 July this year, with the Whangarei site commencing on 1 October this year, and work is under way planning for those future children’s teams. Those other children’s teams will develop much more quickly, as these are the demonstration sites and, in many respects, are trail—and trial, actually—blazing.
Melissa Lee: What developments have been made as part of the children’s team process so far?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we have discovered is that it is hardly surprising that it has to be local. It has to be locally designed, and it has to have buy-in from all of those important agencies—local government, central government, NGOs, and everyone else. We know already just from the two that it is not a cookie cutter approach, if you like. It takes the best of what they are doing there, expands it, puts more resources in, and sees us cutting through a whole lot of bureaucracy.
Conservation, Department—Restructuring
5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Conservation: Is he confident that the proposed new structure for the department reflects the priorities in the Conservation Act 1987?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes, the restructuring is about the Department of Conservation being more efficient by reducing the number of tiers of management from five to four. The restructuring is also about the department being more outward-looking and more able to effectively partner with iwi, with the community, and with business. Much has changed since the Department of Conservation was founded a generation ago. Business and communities are a lot more involved in conservation, and that is welcomed, and the Treaty settlement process means that the department needs to be more able to partner with iwi.
Hon Ruth Dyson: How will the dual management structure, with two positions of equal status—the chief ranger, responsible for conservation, and the relationship manager, responsible for business relationships—ensure the delivery of these conservation priorities?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the conservation side of the work is being run by the rangers. What the Department of Conservation needs to do more effectively is work on how it runs its partnerships with iwi, how it runs its partnerships with business—and we have got more of those happening, and that is a good thing—and also how it partners with community. I can give the member examples in my own electorate of where the department can do better in working with community to look after our special places and ensure the survival of our native species.
Hon Ruth Dyson: How will the insertion of a whole new layer of management, with the establishment of an integration coordinator, ensure the delivery of conservation priorities?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is not a whole new layer, actually. Currently the department has five tiers of management. Under the new structure it will have four. It will have 120 fewer managers because it is this Government’s view that there is too much bureaucracy in the department and we need to be more focused on doing the biz rather than just talking about it.
Maggie Barry: Does the Minister have any examples of where the Department of Conservation has been excessively bureaucratic?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. In 1997 I wrote as Minister asking the department to open the Heaphy Track to mountain biking in winter. Both the Green Party and the Labour Party at the time came out strongly in support. Over 20 reports were written on this issue and it did not eventuate until 2010, on a trial basis. It is a good example of how the department could be more efficient.
Hon Ruth Dyson: How will the reduction of trained rural firefighters in the department from 600 to 460 help protect our conservation estate?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been assured by Al Morrison that the changes around the operational features and the number of people who need to be skilled for rural fire fighting is adequate to manage the risks that the department has around the issues of fire risk across the conservation estate.
Hon Ruth Dyson: How will the loss of 140 department jobs in the field and in regional centres and the addition of 29 new jobs in Wellington assist with delivery of on-the-ground conservation work and the collaboration with communities that he has been praising?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The mistake the member is making is in talking about only—
Hon Annette King: Answer the question.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Give us half a chance, Annette. The—
Hon Annette King: Well, get on with it.
Mr SPEAKER: Answer the question. [Interruption] Order! That is an example of what happens when you get interjections. Would the Minister please continue his answer.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The restructuring has been in two phases. The first phase was done a year ago and resulted in very significant redundancies at head office and in the conservancy offices. In making the judgment about the new structure, as compared with the old, the member needs to consider both those phases together. The long and the short of it is this: the previous Government, when it thought money grew on trees, more than doubled the budget of the Department of Conservation. We are a Government that is committed to balancing the budget. That means that the department has to do its fair share in ensuring that this Government lives within its means.
Tourist Numbers—China Market Review Report
6. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Tourism: What is the Government doing to attract more Chinese tourists to New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Acting Minister of Tourism): The Government has conducted the China Market Review to draw on public and private sector expertise around this very important market. The China Market Review’s report has now been released. The report’s—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be getting pedantic, but I did not think this member was the Minister of Tourism. Is he the Minister of Tourism?
Mr SPEAKER: No. He could more correctly have introduced himself as speaking on behalf of the Minister. Would the member like to start his answer again.
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: My understanding is that while the Prime Minister is away and I am the Acting Minister, I become the Minister of Tourism in his place.
Mr SPEAKER: He may well be right, so I will ask you to initiate the answer again, please. [Interruption] Order! Would the Minister please initiate his answer.
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The Government has conducted the China Market Review to draw on the public and private sector expertise around this very important market—that is the China market, for Mr Mallard’s interest. The China Market Review’s report has now been released. The report’s recommendations range from providing better market intelligence—which could probably be used on the other side of the House—and higher-quality tours, to extending visitor visas for Chinese tourists. Some of these initiatives are already under way—for example, tourism and immigration officials have worked together to extend multi-entry visas for Chinese visitors from 12 months to 24 months, which will reduce red tape for visitors and encourage tourists to return.
Jonathan Young: Why are Chinese tourists important to New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: China is our most rapidly growing tourism market, so we need to ensure we are offering Chinese visitors the highest-quality experiences and meeting their expectations. Over the past year more than 200,000 Chinese visitors came to New Zealand—up about 38 percent on the previous year. They spent around $651 million in New Zealand. That is $651 million in the pockets of our small businesses and tourism operators. Growing our major tourism markets will also be an important factor in meeting the Government’s target for exports to be 40 percent of GDP by 2025.
Barbara Stewart: Does he agree with the Tourism Industry Association’s policy and research manager, Simon Wallace, that with the increase of Chinese global tourists “We could be looking at up to 1 million visitors in 5 years’ time.”; if so, what steps and initiatives is he undertaking so that the New Zealand tourism sector can fully capitalise on this increase in tourist numbers?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Firstly, with 38 percent incremental growth, it is possible that we will reach significantly larger numbers than we currently have. The China Market Review’s report, which the Prime Minister released in China just this week, goes to the very heart of that question.
Jonathan Young: What feedback from the tourism industry has he seen on the China Market Review’s report?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I have seen positive feedback from the industry representatives who took part in the review and from the wider industry. It was very important that we engaged with the industry in the process in order to achieve support for the outcomes. The Tourism Industry Association has said that this report provides a road map to ensure that Chinese visitors have a fantastic time in New Zealand. That is exactly what we want to achieve as we grow this market.
Barbara Stewart: Does he accept Mr Wallace’s assertion that 70 percent of Chinese tourists come to New Zealand for a small period of time after visiting Australia; if so, what steps is he undertaking to increase the length of time that Chinese visitors actually stay in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Once again, the China Market Review’s report goes to the heart of this question. It is about increasing the value from Chinese tourism, improving the ability of Chinese visitors to become free independent traveller tourists on their second visit to New Zealand, and increasing the value.
Conservation, Department—Funding and Restructuring
7. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Will he support “Love DOC Day” by increasing the funding for the department so it can cancel the proposed staffing cuts?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Department of Conservation staff are the most committed and dedicated public servants I have worked with in any of my nine ministerial roles, and I welcome any public recognition of their work. The Department of Conservation’s budget increased by 107 percent in cash terms, or 62 percent in real terms, prior to the global financial crisis. I am quite confident that the department can continue to do its important work with the very modest 3 percent reduction as its contribution towards this Government balancing the books.
Eugenie Sage: When the Public Service Association, which represents 1,400 Department of Conservation staff, said today that the department cannot make the required savings without sacrificing front-line jobs, why is he so confident that conservation work will not suffer?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the days when money grew on trees, the Department of Conservation’s budget increased by more than double. That is why our country, when we came to Government, faced ever-increasing deficits for the next 10 years. The reason I have confidence is that if I compare with a bit over a decade ago, in real terms I have $120 million more per year than what I had in the late 1990s, I have over 200 staff more than what was there in that time, and that gives me great confidence that the Department of Conservation and its staff are able to do the important work in conservation.
Eugenie Sage: When nearly a quarter of the conservation estate—some 1.9 million hectares—is on the West Coast, how can he be confident that conservation work will be done well there when the West Coast region suffers the most from these cuts, with the loss of 25 staff?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The West Coast does have a large conservation estate and a very committed staff, but I am—
Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did you cut the staff?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member who interjects claimed that the staff numbers in Tākaka were being reduced to one. He was out by a factor of 16. I am quite confident the West Coast, like other areas of New Zealand, where I note every single one of the service centres is being maintained, will be able to continue to do its work.
Eugenie Sage: Is he confident that reducing staff numbers on the West Coast to levels below that at the time of the Cave Creek platform collapse is a good idea, when the report of the commission of inquiry in 1995 found that: “The Department of Conservation has been underfunded from the outset with consequent difficulty in carrying out its statutory functions and duties;”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I became the Minister of Conservation after the Cave Creek tragedy. The issue was not a lack of money. That should never be an excuse for any part of the Public Service’s buildings or structures that are unsafe. So I do not accept, and I think the member is incorrect in saying, that somehow it is OK for public sector departments to do things that are unsafe because their budgets might not be what they wish for.
Eugenie Sage: When the Department of Conservation’s current structure was established in response to the findings of the Cave Creek commission of inquiry, how can he be confident that there will be adequate accountability in the new dual structure, which splits the department into a partnership arm and a services arm and has staff in one office reporting to different managers in different locations?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The exact structure of the department is a decision for the Director-General of Conservation, Mr Al Morrison. But what he is absolutely correct about is that the department needs to do a better job of partnering with iwi, and we just need to look at the Treaty settlement legislation that my colleague Chris Finlayson is bringing through the Parliament, and areas like Tūhoe and the national park and the changes there, as well as the increased involvement of business in conservation and community groups, to see that this new structure makes great sense in the forward-looking approach we are taking to conservation management.
Student Allowances—Changes and Impact on Postgraduate Enrolments
8. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Is he still confident that post-graduate students will simply convert to borrowing for their living costs following his abolition of student allowances for post-graduate study that became effective on 1 January 2013?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: The Minister would expect a large number of postgraduate students will borrow for living costs. A number will also choose to undertake paid part-time work, and a number may leave study to enter the full-time workforce. That choice will be up to individual students and their own circumstances. I point out to the member that an increasing number of students entering the workforce is what happens in an improving economy.
Dr Megan Woods: Does he then consider that his abolition of postgraduate allowances contributed to the fall in postgraduate numbers at the University of Otago for the 2013 academic year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible that it may have contributed. But you have to remember that this is in the context of the sustainability of student allowances for all tertiary students. Student allowances in 2007-08 cost $385 million. By 2010-11 they had gone up to $620 million. So student allowances continued to rise just when the Government was running large deficits, and in order to make student allowances sustainable, we have trimmed the scheme.
Dr Megan Woods: Is he then agreeing with the vice-chancellor of the University of Otago, Professor Harlene Hayne, that the drop in postgraduate student numbers was almost certainly the result of students deferring postgraduate study because of financial considerations brought about by his Government’s decision to abolish postgraduate student allowances?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with the vice-chancellor that that is almost certainly the case. Students make a range of choices in response to both this policy change and, more important for postgraduate students, in response to job opportunities in the economy. It is quite likely that as the economy continues to recover, more students, having already achieved a tertiary qualification, will opt for work rather than further postgraduate study.
Dr Megan Woods: Given that of the 1,000 fewer than expected students at the University of Canterbury in 2013 around 100 are postgraduate students—that is a 12 percent decline in postgraduate students versus a 7.5 percent decline in undergraduate students—does he consider that his abolition of postgraduate allowances has contributed to the fall of enrolments and has put further pressures on an already financially strained university?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the leadership of Canterbury University has speculated publicly about a range of reasons for the drop in enrolments—and the member is right, it does put some more stress on that university—but you would have to say in that case that a combination of job opportunities in Christchurch, particularly, but also across the rest of New Zealand, and the ongoing difficulties it has grappling with the effects of the earthquake, it is not surprising that there is some change in student behaviour in respect of Canterbury University.
Dr Megan Woods: Given that he has just outlined a range of factors contributing to the financial pressures at the University of Canterbury and that the university has committed to submitting its business case on time, will he commit to an October deadline for deciding the full extent and timing of Government support that ensures the continuation of a broad-based and research-intensive University of Canterbury?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, of course, would want to make a decision as quickly as it could, but that will depend to a significant extent on the quality of the business case. But the member needs to remember that she cannot have it both ways. Her party portrays itself as a party of fiscal responsibility. It cannot then go opposing every single measure that leads to keeping the books in better shape.
Tracey Martin: Has he seen any reports of any other group of New Zealand citizens being required by their Government to borrow to live; if not, does he believe that this is discrimination?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is quite common for New Zealanders other than students to have to borrow to live. It is called an overdraft. A lot of small businesses actually get from one end of the year to the other on the overdraft and they are pleased if it is cleared. Those overdrafts are paying wages and drawings for the people who run those businesses. It is the same for individuals who run overdrafts, so I do not think it is at all uncommon. Students have the privilege granted to them by the public of New Zealand of having interest-free student loans, and I think most students appreciate that.
Injury Prevention Programmes—Rest Homes
9. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for ACC: What is ACC doing to reduce the incidence of injuries in rest homes?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Following international and New Zealand research, ACC is working in partnership with all district health boards and the Ministry of Health by funding a vitamin D supplementation programme for older adults in residential care.
Simon O’Connor: What is the uptake of vitamin D since this programme has been in place and have any benefits yet been seen?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Vitamin D is a proven way to help reverse muscle weakness, which plays a part in many falls. Research has also shown that vitamin D supplements can reduce falls in older adults in aged-care facilities by more than 25 percent. In 2007 only 16 percent of aged-care residents were prescribed vitamin D. In the last quarter the uptake was recorded at 74 percent, which is above the 70 percent target of the programme. As vitamin D prescription rates in this programme have increased, accident claim numbers have fallen. For example, claims in the 65-plus age group as a whole, excluding those in residential care, increased by 11 percent in the 2011-12 year, while claims for the 65-plus group in residential care fell by 19 percent. [Interruption] And I am sorry that the Labour Party does not care about—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.
Child Poverty—Measurement and Government Initiatives to Address
10. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that the Government does not measure child poverty, as 29 other OECD nations do, because “… while the Labour Party is worried about what those measures are, we are getting on and actually doing something about it”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Aye.
Jacinda Ardern: Does the Government have a plan to reduce child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, we do, and it is a long one. We have insulated over 204,000 homes already; we have seen immunisation rates increase over the past 5 years, from 67 percent to 92 percent; Well Child has got an extra $21.3 million for 18,000 mothers needing additional support; there is $24 million on rheumatic fever over 5 years; $1.4 billion has been going into early childhood education; and an additional $48 million is going into early childhood education equity funding, which supports priority learners in communities, and we are already seeing results from Māori and Pacific children. On top of this we also spend $180 million a year on childcare subsidies, guaranteed child assistance payments, and early learning payments, $60 million for positive behaviour programmes, including Incredible Years, $140 million on Whānau Ora, which is working with all of those—
Mr SPEAKER: I think the length of the answer is quite satisfactory.
Jacinda Ardern: In light of that answer, why did the Children’s Commissioner say this morning that “New Zealand does not have a plan for child poverty. I believe we should.”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: With all respect to the Children’s Commissioner, he and his expert advisory group have put forward a paper to the Government with over 78 recommendations, and the Government is working through that. I think he sees that as the plan. We certainly see the economic development. I would love to read out the other half—I got only halfway through my list, but I will not test the patience of the Speaker.
Jacinda Ardern: In light of her claim that the Government has a plan to reduce child poverty, how much has she reduced child poverty by?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are already seeing results. We have certainly seen them in the last 3 years. [Interruption] Well, they are numerous, actually, when we look at immunisation rates and when we look at the number of home insulations that have gone on, where we are seeing some results. But no one denies that there are children who are living in poverty and are doing it hard in this country.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question—how much has the Government reduced poverty by. I did not get an answer from the Minister. She mentioned immunisation rates. I clearly asked about the poverty rate in New Zealand.
Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is that I could not hear the answer because of the noise coming, particularly, from the Labour side of the House. If we could have the question put again, I will listen very carefully to the answer. I literally could not hear it, and I am as close to the Minister as anybody in this House, which clearly demonstrates that the level of interjection and background noise today is at an unacceptable level. I ask the member to put her question again.
Jacinda Ardern: Certainly, I will repeat the question. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Jacinda Ardern: In light of her claim that the Government has a plan to reduce child poverty, how much has she reduced child poverty by?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe that we are making progress in a number of areas, and that would depend on which measure one used.
Jacinda Ardern: What measure is the Government using for child poverty?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: What this Government is doing is working along on a number of complex issues that we think will fundamentally make a difference. The Labour Party may be caught up in measures; we are caught up in results.
Jacinda Ardern: Mr Speaker, if I could just ask for your assistance. In one question the Minister said “It depends which measure”. I asked which measure then, and then she said there is a whole range—
Mr SPEAKER: Again the problem I have got is, because of the noise from your own colleagues, I could not even hear the answer. The only way forward is for the member to ask the question again, but on this occasion I want to have the chance to hear the answer. If I do not hear it satisfactorily, that will be the end of the matter—if the interjections from this side of the House do not allow me to hear the answer.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, the member did have a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: You can raise a point of order.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time that member’s party has not allowed me to actually answer so that members could hear it, so you have had to ask me to repeat it. If they wish to hear the answer, then that is exactly what they should do.
Mr SPEAKER: I have made that point perfectly—
Hon PAULA BENNETT: So should that happen—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made that point perfectly clear to them.
Jacinda Ardern: What measure is her Government using for child poverty?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is not a Government measure for poverty.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask for your assistance. If the Minister has said earlier in an answer “It depends what measure you’re using.”, and then says “We don’t have one”—
Mr SPEAKER: No. You are now—[Interruption] Order! Order! We are now at a stage when you are litigating the quality of the answer through a point of order. The Minister answered your question quite adequately and, I would have thought, to the satisfaction of the member.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What evidence has the Minister seen on teen pregnancy rates?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: In this country, after looking at the Unicef report that was taken from data from 2009 and 2010, we have seen teen parent birth numbers fall for the last 3 years, despite them rising previously. The birth rate for teen parents is at its lowest since 1962—that is, since records began. Although it is early days, it is likely that this drop has been due to better use of more effective forms of contraception and an increasing number of mums in particular, or teen girls, in education—exactly the areas this Government has made a significant investment in.
Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the flow of question time, but I think that last question demonstrated a problem that has been apparent in the House for some days. There is something wrong with the sound system. In this quarter of the Chamber—and I say this with no disrespect to the two members involved in that questioning process, who have both got reasonably clear voices—once the level of sound of other hubbub starts to rise, it effectively deadens out the sound of those principal speakers. There is something not quite right with the modulation of the sound process, and we simply cannot hear clearly enough what is going on. I think, over the weekend it might be appropriate to get someone to have a look at that balance, before the House resumes on Tuesday.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. There has been a lot of work going on with the sound system, because I think it is evident to every member that we are having significant problems with the sound system. But, fundamentally, the other part of the problem is the level of background noise coming from right across the House. If members want to have the opportunity to question Ministers and to get answers that I can hear, so I can make rulings on the quality of those answers, I need to be able to hear both the question and the answer.
Mining—Economic Benefits and Restriction of Protest Activity
BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would hate for that side not to hear.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will also just address his question.
11. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, of course, always—in the proper context.
Brendan Horan: How does the Minister reconcile his comments that real rights are rights for people who disagree with you with the fact that his bill will trample basic human rights and make criminals of legitimate protesters, that is, Kiwis with genuine concern for our environment, unlike the Minister or, indeed, the Minister for the Environment?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Quite simply, I clearly believe that every New Zealander has rights, including people accused of very serious allegations against their parents.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. There have been a lot of Speaker’s rulings about not bringing personal matters of that sort into questions and answers. There is a lot of tradition in the House and a lot of Speaker’s rulings on it, and references to matters such as that have often been ruled out of order when they are part of ministerial replies.
Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of inference and it is a matter of whether that is how the answer is interpreted, particularly by the member involved. Mr Horan, it appears to me, took no offence with the answer. I think it would have been more satisfactorily answered in a different way—
Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took so much offence to that comment that I am speechless.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member took offence, I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw the latter part of his answer.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I withdraw.
Brendan Horan: Given his claim that the bill is about “higher-paid jobs in the provinces”, will he support a requirement for a minimal level of local content in mineral extraction, and at what percentage—50 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, or even a paltry 10 percent?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, there is simply no need for that. Many of the major businesses in this field are New Zealand ones. Indeed, the biggest, the Todd Corporation, is the biggest by quite some margin. There are many others—New Zealand Oil and Gas, Greymouth Petroleum—and there are thousands of New Zealanders employed in this industry.
Family Court—Reform
12. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): As long as I really did say them and they are in context and in full, yes.
Andrew Little: Which statement does she stand by: her one to the House on 14 March 2013 that “Where people need legal representation in the Family Court they will get it. This is not changing.”, or her statement in the New Zealand Herald on 30 March 2013 about planned changes to her Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that will mean “more involvement by lawyers than indicated” and “opportunities for lawyers to be involved in relation to children as well”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Both of them. They are both very sensible comments.
Andrew Little: When she said in the House on 14 March 2013 in relation to the proposed family dispute resolution process that “After six sessions of mediation a judge will then be able to actually triage the matter.”, was she indicating that the work of the external reference group currently looking into that question is at an end; if so, why is it that that group is still meeting to consider all issues to do with the proposed new processes?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I meant that that is exactly what the proposal said. The external group involving the judges and other parties involved in Family Court proceedings are, of course, working with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the rules and regulations come under way. But that is actually the proposal.
Andrew Little: Can she assure the House that the impending changes to her bill will mean that the bill will now comply with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The bill is currently in the select committee—and that member is actually a member of that select committee—so it would be a little bit difficult for me to say what that committee is going to come back with. But I can tell the member this: it will be an excellent bill and I hope he will support it.
Andrew Little: What has prompted her to change her mind on Family Court reform: the statement of the New Zealand Law Society that the changes “would make the Family Court less efficient and accessible and would put children at risk”, the statement from the Principal Family Court Judge, Laurence Ryan, that “there will be no cost savings at all … fewer cases settle, more judicial time will be required and more cases will go to defended hearings.”, or the hundreds of others who are expressing fear about the reforms, and why did she let the bill even get this far?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: None of those. Of course, I have always said that this is a bill that would go through a select committee process and that obviously the submitters would be listened to. I am absolutely determined that family dispute resolution will be a major part of any Family Court matters, and none of that is changing.
Bills
Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 10 April.
Part 2 Amendments to Conservation Act 1987 (continued)
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, of course, deals with the Conservation Act, which is very pertinent on “Love DOC Day”; on a day that we on this side of the Chamber are showing our support for the work the Department of Conservation does. We want to say to all of the staff of the Department of Conservation that even if the National Government does not appreciate what they do, we certainly do. So it is very, very timely—
Hon Member: So do we!
MOANA MACKEY: Well, the National Party members might say that they do, but then they cut the funding, which clearly shows that it is all lip service.
But coming back to the Conservation Act, the changes being made under the Conservation Act are typical of the problems right through this piece of legislation. There are some very good things in this legislation, there are some very positive changes that are being made, but it is always one step forward, two steps back with the National Government. So although under Part 2 of this legislation we are very pleased to see the automatic inclusion—[Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is far too much background noise going on. It is totally discourteous to the honourable member trying to address the business of the Committee. Please be considerate of others.
MOANA MACKEY: As I was saying, with the National Government it is always one step forward, two, three, four, five steps backwards. Although in Part 2 of this bill we are very pleased to see that new reserve land will be automatically included in schedule 4, what is more disappointing is once again the dilution of the powers of the Minister of Conservation. Under the changes to Part 2, whereas it used to be the preserve of the Minister of Conservation to decide on the status of the land, now that is going to be taken away from the Minister of Conservation and handed to Cabinet by Order in Council. So we are seeing right through this piece of legislation a weakening of the role of the Minister of Conservation.
It is important to remind members that the Minister of Conservation is the Minister who is responsible for the stewardship of the Department of Conservation estate on behalf of New Zealanders—that is their mandate. So we have seen in Part 1 of this bill that where there is an application for a mining activity to be carried out on Department of Conservation land, it used to be the Minister of Conservation who weighed up what the impact would be on Department of Conservation land and made that decision in the best interests of the preservation of that land for all New Zealanders. Now half of that responsibility has gone to the Minister of Energy and Resources. So the Minister of Energy and Resources, who clearly has a vested interest in seeing those projects going ahead, now has half the decision-making power, and that is entirely inappropriate. It is not just inappropriate; it is an absolute boon for lawyers, because this is going to result in judicial review after judicial review after judicial review.
You see the Minister of Energy and Resources out there constantly promoting mining, making it quite clear that they want projects to go ahead, going to opening of company offices, doing all the things that a Minister of Energy and Resources does—and there is nothing wrong with a Minister of Energy and Resources doing those things; that is their role. But then to say that they are unbiased or have not predetermined their choice when it comes to actually making a decision about a concession on Department of Conservation land, I do not think that that is going to be feasible. It is going to result in people who are unhappy with the decision taking a judicial review saying that a proper process was not followed because the Minister of Energy and Resources had made up their mind all along. The simple thing to do would be to leave things as they are and leave it to the Minister of Conservation, because that is where it is appropriate.
As I said, we are pleased to see the automatic inclusion of reserve land in schedule 4, but are very disappointed to see that despite the fact that the Government has claimed to have backed down on mining on schedule 4 land, we are already seeing more exploratory work being done. It is like the Japanese with whaling, you know—this is just scientific research, nothing to see here, we just want to see what is there. Well, the only reason you would want to see what is there—and it is private companies that are doing this, not the Government—is that if at some point the Government said to them: “You know what? Yes, we are going to let you”—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): We are speaking on Part 2 here of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I will say in the Committee that perhaps I was a little harsh on the Government when speaking on Part 1 yesterday; I just find it very difficult to praise the Government very much these days.
Part 2 does deal with the conservation parts of the Crown minerals legislation, but can I go back and make reference to Part 1, because, of course, there is the ability now to include in the permitting provisions requirements around health and safety. Indeed, we have, hopefully, through the lessons of Pike River learnt that we must include protection for human values, for human lives, for health and safety up front in the permitting regime and the mining oversight regime from the department—the new super-department, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
It was perhaps pertinent that yesterday we were talking about that, because I must make brief reference to the report—it is an independent report, of course, we are told—to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the new department. It is very, very sad reading. It says there have been systemic failures in parts of a now superministry, which, we are told, have been addressed. I am not quite sure whether they have been. The point is that if those systemic problems have not been addressed, then we are further exacerbating the problems through the superministry oversight implemented with the passage of this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. It has good intent in some areas, but, as my colleague Moana Mackey said, it does step back from safeguards for the natural values that of course are important to us, not just now but into the future. So in making one step forward in protecting health and safety and human values, the Government is taking one step backward in protecting natural values.
The restructuring that has gone on in combination with the changes in this bill do leave a lot of New Zealanders wondering whether we are simply opening up the Department of Conservation estate to rampant development. On top of that there is a lot of experience within the Department of Conservation, particularly in the West Coast - Tasman area, where the department’s people have found the right balance between allowing wise and responsible mining on conservation land and protecting the natural values wherever possible.
Part 2 deals with changes in the area of the conservation estate. It does allow the securing of some areas should they be deemed to be schedule 4 or of schedule 4 value, but the question around other conservation land remains—that is, if you gut the Department of Conservation, if you—oh, I see. If you remove the capacity—I am not allowed to use the word “gut”—within the department to astutely assess what is happening, then people wonder whether, in fact, we are going to now see, as we did with human lives, a destruction of conservation values. That is not something that anyone wishes for any industry—mining, agriculture, forestry, or whatever.
So in summary, I have to remind the officials and the Minister of Energy and Resources that if you can let the Department of Labour get to the point where “Its performance as a health and safety regulator of Pike was ineffectual and dysfunctional.”, then this is the kind of oversight that can occur in a Government department if it is squeezed of resources. That is what the Minister of Conservation is doing to the Department of Conservation, and that will lead to the same kind of dysfunctional oversight if we are not careful.
So in Part 1 of the bill the Government has made some progress, off the back of a terrible tragedy, to implement some health and safety measures, some requirements in the permitting regime for mining, and some requirements in the ongoing oversight, and that we welcome. In Part 2, rather than learning from the lessons of tragedies like Cave Creek and tragedies like Pike River, we are making changes around the area of mining and conservation. I hope we are not setting up the department for a big failure.
Although the Minister of Energy and Resources shakes his head, his colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is not gutting but almost exterminating, and certainly removing from the front line responsibility across the Department of Conservation, and removing capability, removing experience, and destroying the livelihoods of people who have committed to conservation and the Department of Conservation all their working lives. They have been told that they are down the road because they are no longer needed. This is being done at a time when the Minister claims we are going to boost the capability of mining and we are going to allow mining companies to work in areas of conservation land. That is something I acknowledge we should do, but we need to uphold the ability of the department to negotiate in a way that ensures the strictest of guidelines and protections for the water, for the soil, for the natural values, and for all the protected species on Department of Conservation land.
So this bill comes at a crucial time, a time when we should be learning from the lessons of the past. A Green colleague today—and she is probably speaking here later on in the bill—raised the very sad issue of Cave Creek. I was a member of Parliament then. I dealt with the Minister of Conservation at that stage. He walked, because he acknowledged that they had squeezed the department—just as the current Minister is doing now—to the point where the passion and the commitment to conservation by the individuals on the ground meant they got out and did work themselves. It was work that was proven not to be up to standard, unfortunately, in the issue of Cave Creek. But there is that same passion and that same squeeze on resources that is referred to in the Department of Labour report. Resources were not there to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Labour, and it gave rise to a dysfunctional and incapable Department of Labour in the area of upholding health and safety. The Ministers over there smile, they shake their heads, and they give reassurances. Some of those Ministers were in Government in 1990 when they did the same thing to the Department of Conservation.
Part 2 of this bill deals with the issue of conservation. Unfortunately, it does not deal with the issue of resources for conservation management. This very day people up and down this country are out marching, protesting to try to protect and uphold conservation values. As an MP from an area of huge and spectacular conservation estate and resources, I want good people to protect and look after that area. I also want mining, and I want safe mining.
So in this one piece of legislation we are summarising so many real issues that are at the front of the minds of people not only in my electorate but up and down this country around health and safety, around the ability of the Government to regulate and oversee industry in the proper way, and around the issue of the Government’s ability to manage conservation land on behalf of each and every one of us. We want that land to be there for our children and our grandchildren. We want jobs, and mining is part of that economic mix, but it must not be at the expense of New Zealanders’ lives and it must not be at the expense of the desecration of our environment or conservation land. This bill raises more questions than it provides answers for, and I want assurances from that Minister that resources will go back into the Department of Conservation to properly negotiate in the areas of responsibility that are laid down in this bill.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Like my colleague Damien O’Connor, who has just resumed his seat, I think that it is particularly appropriate and really sad that we are debating these changes under Part 2 of this legislation, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, on a day when throughout the country people are offering their support to our Department of Conservation workers whose jobs are under threat. Their jobs are not under threat because they are inefficient. They are not under threat because the legislation has changed and somebody thinks they should not be doing the work that we have had them doing since 1987. They are under threat because the National Government has savagely cut the Department of Conservation’s budget, and there is no way that it can live within its budget without massive job cuts. The cuts we have seen indicated will affect 140 people around the country. The people who are out in the regions, implementing the very Conservation Act that we are amending in Part 2, are going to be losing their jobs, but at the same time there is going to be a bunch more people put into the head office in Wellington.
That, to me, completely undermines the purpose of this bill, and it means that despite our support for the provisions in the bill we have even more concerns surrounding them. We would like to be supporting this legislation. We said that right at the start. We said that there were some fundamental concerns that we had, and if they were addressed through the Commerce Committee, then we would be delighted to support this legislation.
The best thing that this Parliament can offer to people who want to have confidence in our conservation management and to the business community that wants mining is clear guidelines—a strong message from this Parliament. What they have got now is a total mess, and I have to say that the Minister of Energy and Resources, who is in the chair at the moment, has made it significantly worse with his rammed-through Supplementary Order Paper 205 and Supplementary Order Paper 210 that we debated in Part 1. That is in stark contrast to the way his predecessor behaved. The Hon Phil Heatley—who is not used to being praised by me, because I tell the truth—on this occasion actually picked up the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. He took them to the select committee, and the chair of the select committee, Jonathan Young, quite properly ensured that the select committee considered those recommendations as an extra bit of work and came back to this House having debated them properly. That is what should have happened to Simon Bridges’ Supplementary Order Papers, but, oh no, he knows more than anyone and thought he could just ram them through at the last minute. Well, his arrogance and his pride will trip him up. It will be a significant fall, and I know that a lot of people are waiting for that to happen—particularly his colleagues, I understand.
The biggest concern that we have, which was raised right at the very beginning of this debate, is outlined in Part 2, and that is the new dual decision-making power. Instead of the Minister of Conservation having the decision-making authority, mandate, and responsibility under the legislation, it is now being given half and half to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources. That is entirely inappropriate.
My colleague Moana Mackey pointed out earlier in the debate about the vested interests that the Minister of Energy and Resources has. Quite rightly—we are not saying this is inappropriate—the Minister of Energy and Resources really has a responsibility not just to regulate the sector but also to promote opportunities for the sector, and, obviously, mining is a key part of that. How can that possibly be balanced against the need and advocacy of the Minister of Conservation to protect our public estate? It just does not work. It is a stupid idea. Heaven only knows who thought of it—probably Steven Joyce, I imagine—but it has got no part to play in clear legislation, which should state, so that the public understand, our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure the protection and management of our conservation estate and, separately, under a different regime, the need to have energy proposals pursued.
I am very pleased that the reserve land now has an automatic inclusion in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act—that is one good thing that has come out of this. My colleague Moana Mackey also talked about the exploratory drilling that is under way at the moment. The Minister Simon Bridges must think that every member of the public is completely stupid. There is only one reason for a private company to invest in exploratory drilling in schedule 4 areas, and that is that it knows that at some time in the future the Government will give it the sign-off. Otherwise, it would not waste its money; it would do exploratory drilling somewhere else.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you. I would like to pay particular tribute to the speech by Damien O’Connor, who comes from the West Coast, which has had two tragedies: Cave Creek and Pike River coalmine. The latter was due to a failure of regulation, which this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, goes some way to addressing.
In terms of the West Coast, the Cave Creek commission of inquiry looked into the circumstances around the platform collapse and highlighted that the department had been starved of resources and did not have the number of staff or the resourcing provided through Vote Conservation that it needed to do its job well. That is what we are seeing with this Government, and that is why hundreds of people around New Zealand today have turned up at Department of Conservation offices to post their messages of support for the department and the professional ability of departmental staff and the work they do. That is because New Zealanders love and treasure the places that the department is charged with managing.
What we have in Part 2 of the bill is a major change, so that a decision to reclassify land as a nature reserve or a scientific reserve will not be a decision just for the Minister of Conservation but will be a Cabinet decision. So the whole philosophy of the Government here is that you cannot trust the Department of Conservation to manage conservation land properly and you have to bring Cabinet in. When you bring Cabinet in—with the Minister in the chair, Hon Simon Bridges, and his responsibilities under this bill to promote mining—we will see conservation lands, our public protected lands, opened up to much more development.
Where will that hit most? In areas like Coromandel and in areas like the West Coast, where there are already some hundreds of alluvial goldmining licences. There is already a large-scale, open-cast goldmine, OceanaGold, in the forests behind Reefton, and it makes a huge hole in the Victoria Conservation Park and the wildlife corridor that connects the central Southern Alps with Paparoa.
It is those sorts of big developments, which destroy forests and pollute streams, that this Government wants to encourage on conservation land. That is why it is depriving the department of staff and resources. The cuts last year saw the loss of a lot of the planning and technical staff who would make submissions under the Resource Management Act on applications to mine but who no longer do because that brings them into conflict with the mining companies, and the cuts deprive the department of the staff who are responsible for overseeing applications that are granted to mine on conservation land. If you strip out that, you are stripping out the ability to supervise mining operations and you are stripping out the field staff who are doing the work of predator control and actively protecting our plants and wildlife.
Although the Minister of Conservation said today that he is confident that the department will continue to do its work, his comments have been seen as insulting by the families of those who are losing their jobs in the staff cuts. We have had an open letter to the Minister in Wilderness magazine, which showed that there are front-line staff positions that are being cut. It is not back-room people. It is not the bureaucrats, the paper shufflers whom the Minister refers to; it is people who are doing vital conservation work. They are doing work around threatened species. They are also doing work in supervising mining. If you strip out that, you strip out the ability for the department to properly manage our public protected lands.
This bill highlights how hostile the Government is both to conservation legally and, in terms of its budget decisions, to the department’s work on the ground, because it is taking out the staff who have got the professional capability to do that work. So this bill is about not trusting the department. It is about the resource use Ministers—the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister of Science and Innovation—wanting to get their hands on conservation lands to promote more commercial exploitation, focusing very much on the short term not the management of these lands to protect their conservation values now and for the future.
So it is very short-term thinking and it is showing a complete lack of understanding of how the department operates, of how much work is actually done in the field, and that you cannot replace that professional work with volunteers. Nor can your replace it by commercial sponsorships, because of the variability in those. This bill shows that the Government does not trust the Department of Conservation.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Obviously, the irony of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill coming back to the House on “Love DOC Day” does not escape anybody. Although this part of the bill does not draw a great deal of criticism from us, because it amends the Conservation Act in ways that are probably quite constructive, the irony still remains that it is a very odd thing to have this piece of legislation, which in other parts works against conservation and the protection of the environment, being brought into the Committee on this day when people are protesting up and down the country about the cuts to the Department of Conservation.
I want to add my concerns to those of others who have expressed their views about cuts to staff in the Department of Conservation, but I want to use a particular local example that is of significance. If one looks at the numbers alone, as the Minister of Conservation has done in the recent past, it would appear that only 4.5 full-time equivalent positions will be taken out of the Nelson region of the Department of Conservation. In fact, he conveniently ignores the fact that there are currently 10 vacancies. So we are losing 14.5 people out of that region.
If this Part 2 of the legislation is to be upheld and implemented in a way that enhances the protection of our conservation estate, it is a truism to say we need more people, not fewer. If the argument of the Minister of Conservation in the House earlier today that, in fact, there is a way forward for maintaining these wilderness areas or sanctuary areas or whichever part of our country is going to be included and renamed into the conservation estate, which is what Part 2 covers, then the partnerships with the community seem to be the poor man’s way of achieving optimal protection. It is the cheap way to use volunteer labour of committed people up and down the country and relegating the Government’s responsibility for the conservation estate to the back-burner, because it is with that idea in mind that the Department of Conservation with its reduced numbers will have to engage with the community in order to get any ongoing protection.
My ongoing concern about Part 2, although it has words in it that I applaud and I do not have a particular problem with it, is that there will not be the infrastructure and the personnel available in the Department of Conservation to allow Part 2 to be implemented and to be observed in the way that I presume the Minister intends it to be. So a conservation area, for example, under Part 2, “declared to be held for the purpose of a wilderness area, a sanctuary area, or both, under this section must be managed in a manner that is consistent with that purpose or those purposes (as the case may be).” I am quoting from clause 57(4) of Part 2. So if a conservation area that is held to be a wilderness area or a sanctuary area is to be managed in a way that is consistent with that purpose, then it needs to have the requisite personnel and the suitable oversight and resourcing given to it by the Government to meet that purpose, and this is not what we are seeing. Thank you very much.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I feel an urgent need to take a call on Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill because, after what I have just experienced in the last 24 hours around both this bill and around schedule 4, I am afraid that this part is fatally compromised. I was positive about this part of the bill, and the Green Party was positive about it, but now that we know that schedule 4 may be open to drilling rigs, I feel less confident at the fact that pieces of land or other areas of sanctuary will go automatically, into schedule 4. That is no longer the good news it should have been. I agree with the comments from my colleagues from the Labour Party that we need to uphold the core values of conservation, but if schedule 4 is now open for drilling—and the Minister of Energy and Resources at question time would not rule this out—that shows you just how serious the situation is.
New Zealanders expect Part 2 to mean what it says. New Zealanders marched—more than 40,000 people—and made submissions so that Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill would have some meaning, so that, in fact, areas like the Ramsar Convention wetlands, areas like sanctuaries and scientific reserves, and other reserves that are also covered later in the Reserves Act but are on the conservation estate—all of those—would have some meaning. So what we see now is the Minister—and I have a legal opinion to say that the minimum impact does not include drilling—is going to ensure, through this bill, that, in fact, because of other sections of this bill, Part 2 will be literally undermined.
Let us get real about what goes on, on the conservation estate, at the moment, when you are talking about protection of special places in schedule 4. Archey’s frog is the rarest frog on the planet. It is the ancient amphibian that gives birth to live young. It is a tiny little frog. It is an absolutely amazing little creature, which is very hard to see with the naked eye. In an area that should be in schedule 4 right now, an area called Wharekīrauponga, just south of Whangamata, in the hills behind Whangamata, right now there is a mining company called Newmont Mining Corporation with drilling rigs in that area. Now, if we want to move that area into schedule 4, we will have to go through an Order in Council; it will no longer be purely the word of the Minister of Conservation.
Even without some of the other parts of this bill that are very deleterious to the environment, we are concerned about how we are going to get areas into schedule 4—let alone the protections once they get there. Take this little frog, the most ancient and the rarest frog on the planet, which you would think would be an iconic New Zealand species that everyone would uphold. What has happened is the consultants who were brought in—because the Department of Conservation does not have the resources to actually look at the activities of this frog—did a 2-hour, daylight survey in the area where the drilling rig was going to be brought in, and said “Oh, well, nothing is there.” I spoke to Dr Phil Bishop, who is from University of Otago. He is the international head of the Amphibian Survival Alliance, which is the group that is trying to keep the rarest frog in the world alive, and he said nobody, not even the world expert, which he is, could have found that little frog in daylight. It is simply impossible, let alone in 2 hours in the middle of the forest. It is simply not how a proper conservation expert would go about these things.
That supports the point that others have been making, which is for Part 2, you have to have robust support systems in order to make sure that the management and the sustaining of the conservation estate can be carried out. Instead, after today, I find we are going to have drilling rigs in schedule 4 land. So that means that the public are going to find out, and are finding out today, that a Government that said “No mining” actually meant “No mining, except you can do everything but, and then you can lobby us and maybe”—apologies, Mr Chairperson, not you. But maybe lobbying will help, because if one has identified a gold reserve say, for example, in the middle of the Archey’s frog habitat, perhaps the Government would look at schedule 4 again.
So what we are seeing in this bill is that Part 2 talks about these very good values, but, as well as the risks to schedule 4 that we have learnt about in the last few hours, there is also the problem that the Minister of Conservation is no longer the sole arbiter of what gets added to schedule 4. So although the bill is at pains to say that it will not remove anything schedule 4, if it has to go via Order in Council—i.e., Cabinet—rather than the Minister’s word, the priorities of the Government of the day, rather than the person whose job it is to uphold the guardianship values, will hold sway. We talked about this in Part 1, but it also applies to this part of the bill, in Part 2; you have to be able to apply those values. Any weakening of those values will result potentially in the loss of a species such as the Archey’s frog, the rarest frog on the planet.
The Government may be quite comfortable with that, because, actually, for the Government, mining for gold—a mineral that is mainly not used for anything particularly essential. Twelve percent of gold is used in electronics. The rest of it is in jewellery or it is locked up in banks.
We are talking about destroying the ecosystem, destroying the environment that has been set aside in schedule 4, for a whole lot of stuff that could be recycled from your cellphone and mine, or from a landfill. But gold fever knows no bounds. Gold fever is about an obsession with a metal that can be found above the ground. There is lots of it above the ground sitting around doing nothing. Instead, under this bill, these special places can be sacrificed.
The other thing that they are looking for in parts of the conservation estate, of course, is coal. Nobody mentioned it last night, but, guess what, it is a fossil fuel, we have a climate crisis, and we need to transition away from coal. So what we are looking for is not a cure for cancer; what we are looking for are metals that can be recycled and minerals that we can also transition away from. There is no commitment and no vision behind this bill. All it is, is how we can get into the conservation estate and make sure that we have access, above all other things, to these things like gold, silver, coal, or oil. Anyone would think that climate change was not real to anybody who supports this bill—clearly it is not.
So we have a bizarre situation where we have the Archey’s frog, the rarest frog on the planet is endangered. The communities have opposed this. The people all over the country, including Ngāti Hau just the other day on Radio New Zealand National saying that it does not want the conservation estate or its own land at Puhi Puhi dug up because of the mercury risk—all of these people are going to find that this bill is a facilitator bill. Part 2, which ought to be a strong protection, is fatally undermined.
It is very, very disappointing because we are serious about conservation, but there is no point in playing games and setting up these ideas of X protection and then undermining them in the next breath. And that is what has happened today. In the next breath, schedule 4, which is protected in Part 2, is being undermined by the Minister, who announced today that he would not rule out drilling rigs. There is only one reason you bring in the drilling rig. You have done your surveying. You have done your aeromagnetic surveying. You have done it all and you want to mine. The mining companies want to mine and the Government is saying: “One day, boys, this will all be yours.”
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next speaker, I just want to draw to members’ attention in the Chamber that this is a debating chamber. It is not a place to receive phone calls during sittings of the House. We are not a call centre. Phones should be on silent mode when they are brought into the Chamber.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Part 2 agreed to.
Part 3 Amendments to Continental Shelf Act 1964
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Part 3 deals with amendments to the Continental Shelf Act, and, of course, this Act is part of the area where the Government has got itself into quite a bit of controversy over the Supplementary Order Papers that it dumped on the public on Easter Sunday and on this Committee belatedly. Currently, any mining for minerals that is carried out on the continental shelf is carried out under the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and what this part does is amend the Continental Shelf Act so that once this piece of legislation comes into force it will now be the Crown Minerals Act that governs the mining of minerals and petroleum on the continental shelf.
This is where we once again have got ourselves into difficulty. The previous Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Phil Heatley, might want to take a call and give us the benefit of his wisdom, seeing as he was the drafter of this legislation initially. He was not the drafter of the dreadful Supplementary Order Paper that we have dealt with to ban protest vessels, and I know that the Hon Phil Heatley would never ever have stood for that as Minister of Energy and Resources. He was an upholder of people’s rights, not a destroyer of rights, and that is, of course, how he will be remembered in terms of his legacy as the Minister of Energy and Resources. Unfortunately, his legacy as Minister of Housing ain’t so flash. But never mind—one out of two ain’t bad.
So coming back to Part 3 and the Continental Shelf Act, this is the area that we have been discussing in the House and in the media over the last week or so, since the Government announced that out on the high seas, which is where we find the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, there will be limitations on the rights of people to legally protest against vessels and instalments that are on the continental shelf.
The reason that we have an issue with it is that this is not about stopping illegal activity on the continental shelf, at all. It is about making it as hard as possible for people to go out and voice their concerns and protest about what is occurring on the continental shelf and, of course, the exclusive economic zone. The reason that is the case is that the changes that the Government has made apply only to protest vessels and only to those who are protesting against oil and gas exploration. If this was about safety, if this was about stopping illegal activity—activity that would be illegal in our territorial waters—then the law change would apply to everyone. But this is happening on the continental shelf, for these activities.
So what the Government has done by putting it into the Crown Minerals Act, if it is in relation to a permit that is granted under the Crown Minerals Act—and currently those permits are granted under the Continental Shelf Act—is transferring that across to the Crown Minerals Act. I think petroleum always existed under the Crown Minerals Act. But what happens is when one of these permits, which used to be granted under the Continental Shelf Act, is now granted under the Crown Minerals Act, anyone who protests against the activity that that permit is allowing and who gets in the way of or interferes with a vessel or a structure will now face significant penalties.
The question we asked, and the question that was never answered by any of the Government members or the Ministers who gave speeches, was why would that not apply to everyone? Why is it only under those permits currently granted under the Continental Shelf Act that it is now covered? Because now what we are saying is that you have got within your territorial waters—[Interruption] it is a very important point, Mr Chair—an activity that is illegal. But that very same activity that occurs on the continental shelf under a permit currently carried out under the Continental Shelf Act—that same activity, that very same activity—will be allowed, unless it is protesting against oil and gas exploration.
So what I am saying is that this is focusing on the behaviour and on this particular permit that has been granted under this particular Act. It is not focusing on the dangerous behaviour, which should apply to everyone, and it should apply, actually, to those industry operators who have permits under the Continental Shelf Act. If they act dangerously or recklessly or in a way that would be illegal in our territorial waters, then why should they not face the same penalties? Why is, once again, the playing field being skewed so incredibly towards the petroleum and mineral extraction industry, but everyone else and every other industry that uses the continental shelf and that carries out activities there does not get the same protection under the law? And protesters who may be the target of some activity that would be illegal in our territorial waters do not get the protection of the law.
It is simply not fair and it simply makes no sense to not have it apply to everyone and to only say: “Well, if you’ve got a permit under the Continental Shelf Act and that has now been transferred to the Crown Minerals Act, then we’ll protect you. But everyone else, I’m sorry, we are not interested. We’re not interested if people carry out dangerous and illegal behaviour against you.”
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I will take just a brief call on this quite brief section, Part 3, of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which, as my colleague Moana Mackey has ably described, is basically moving these provisions into the Crown Minerals Act. But I think that this part represents a theme in the bill, which is what I would call putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. It is about shifting the management of very important places such as the oceans into a resource model, rather than a respect model. It may be news to some people, but the ocean is not a great place to dig up. We have very little control on land with some of our pollution issues, but we have far less control under the sea. That is what we learnt by seeing some of the disasters that have taken place in other parts of the world. It may be all very well and logical to move the Continental Shelf Act provisions relating to minerals into the Crown Minerals Act, but it does not solve the fundamental problem, which is that this is the new frontier and this is the big expansion.
We have exhausted many of our resources on land. We now want to do over what is left—the great, mysterious, and sacred ocean, which we do not understand. But it does not matter that we do not understand it, because it is a see-no-evil environment. It is like outer space. You can chuck your junk into the sky, you can dump your junk into the sea, but it really does not matter, because we cannot see it. So it is fine. You can dig a great big hole in the ocean and all of those subtle effects will not really matter, and that is what is so pathetic about regarding the ocean as purely a place for the extraction of minerals. A lot of the mineral extraction in the ocean is going very slowly, because it is incredibly difficult to do. If you look at the coast off the Raukūmara Basin, for example, where the proposal was to do oil exploration, these are extremely deep waters, indeed, on every level, both metaphorically and in a real sense.
Also, it is very ironic that in that very place was the birth of Supplementary Order Paper 205, which was referred to earlier, which affects the continental shelf and which, so far, has not been applied to us on land, but I would not be at all surprised if Minister Bridges’ brilliant idea of locking up protesters at sea gets moved to become a brilliant idea of locking up protesters on land. I mean, that is always a possibility. It is perfectly logical. If mining is the only priority, why do you not lock up everybody who disagrees with you and who comes near any of your operations? That is absolutely seen as being fair enough by what is intended in that Supplementary Order Paper. So—
Hon Maryan Street: Don’t give him ideas.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I am not trying to give those members ideas. I am aware that they have very strange ideas. It is what Bruce Jesson would have said: only their purpose is mad. I think that is a very interesting way to describe this bill and also this part, which should be just another logical, technical, administrative thing. Nothing in this bill is logical and just technical; a lot of this bill is facilitative.
All I can say is that if you think we know what we are doing on land, where we are still trying to clean up our waterways and where we are still trying to basically understand what goes in our rivers, which we can actually access and see, we have no idea what is going on in the ocean, and yet we are proposing through these continental shelf provisions to open up a new frontier that should be learnt about, respected, and looked after. It is not as if there are no alternative things we can do to find minerals and to create green, sustainable energy. Those things exist, but the companies want to invest in their new frontier—assisted often by GNS Science, I am horrified to say—and that is where we are going with this. That is the tragedy of this bill. It opens up a frontier that forgets about a fundamental lack of information, a lack of evidence, and a lack of relationship and respect for the ocean. That is why Elvis Teddy stood up for Whānau-a-Apanui in his own fishing ground and said no, and that is why Simon Bridges has to try to shut him down.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Part 4 Amendments to Reserves Act 1977
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is fantastic to be speaking on Part 4 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which deals with amendments to the Reserves Act 1977. This was one of the less contentious areas within the bill. As I noted earlier, it certainly would have been our preference, as we indicated as this bill was introduced, to debate to agreement the concerns that we had, and obviously the concerns that other parties had as well. I thought that the Commerce Committee made really rigorous efforts in that regard, and I want to commend the chair, Jonathan Young, for his behaviour and conduct of the proceedings. There were obviously strongly held views on many of these issues, but, unfortunately, when we got to the end of the proceedings, we were not able to agree on the fundamental points that we had raised when the bill was introduced.
The primary one was the dual decision-making. This part here is one that the Minister of Conservation maintains. It is very good. It has some automatic scheduling of reserve land into schedule 4, and that is obviously an improvement on the existing position that the Minister of Conservation holds. But, tragically, it does not outweigh the weakening of the ability of the Minister of Conservation to make a decision in regard to minerals, whether it is exploratory drilling or mining itself. That has been discussed in earlier parts of this bill, but it is particularly relevant to Part 4 as well. It does not outweigh the concerns that we have about that dual decision-making.
In question time today I also mentioned the comparison of the current structure of the Department of Conservation, which obviously is responsible for the Reserves Act 1977, and the way that the department has now modelled itself on Cabinet dual decision-making, where we have the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources taking decisions jointly, where previously it was the Minister of Conservation’s mandate. In the same way, the Department of Conservation, in its proposed new structure, is going to have two positions of equal status. One is going to be the chief ranger, who is responsible for conservation issues, and the other one, in the same tier of the department, is going to be called the relationship manager, and that person will be focused on the business side of the Department of Conservation. Like most of this bill, it represents a significant weakening of the mandate and the responsibility that the Minister of Conservation currently has.
That concern was only heightened when on Easter Sunday we had the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Simon Bridges, dumping on the Committee a massive Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 205, without any consideration of referral to the select committee. It is a significant piece of work that changes the rights of protesters in regard to their opposition to any activity on the continental shelf. If you look at how many changes the select committee made to Part 4, which was not a contentious area in comparison with some of the others, there are significant alterations. There are large sections of Part 4 that have been deleted. There are significant insertions, and obviously there was a lot of debate. So how could we have had this much debate and alteration in Part 4, a comparatively uncontentious area, when the Minister Simon Bridges can justify dumping a significant, controversial Supplementary Order Paper on the Committee on Easter Sunday without any select committee consideration or ability to debate it or change it? That is really the height of arrogance.
I was very disappointed in the Minister’s behaviour when he was in the chair last evening. I was very disappointed in the behaviour of the Attorney-General. I have not actually heard before the denigration that occurred towards highly respected members of our community Dame Anne Salmond and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, both of whom hold strong views but are very highly regarded. Dame Anne Salmond is the New Zealander of the Year, and yet in this Chamber and in this debate they were treated very poorly. I really regret that, in the same way that I regret the treatment that the Minister has given this Committee. If you can compare this Part 4—
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Part 4 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill amends the Reserves Act 1977, and this is where we see that synergy that we had with Part 2 where any new land that is deemed to be a reserve will now automatically go into schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and will therefore be protected. Well, that is the general idea.
We have concerns that that may change in the future, given the noises that have been coming from industry. Businesses are going out and actually prospecting on schedule 4 land. The Government says they are just having a look. They are just interested to see what might be out there. My experience is that businesses do not pay money just out of pure curiosity. They are doing it because they have obviously had an indication from this National-led Government that at some point in the future those parts of schedule 4 are going to be opened up for exploration. Otherwise why would they be looking?
It is very, very disappointing because obviously this is an issue that the public are extremely concerned about. When you have tens and tens of thousands of people marching up Queen Street, that sends a very strong message. The Government said it would back down, but all indications are that it is doing it on the sly now.
So although I welcome this amendment to Part 4, which deems that any new land that is added to the Reserves Act 1977 automatically goes into schedule 4, and there does not have to be a process that is gone through—that is very good—it is the same thing again, which is right through this bill: one step forward, five steps backwards. That is a disappointing thing. Yes, that is good. Yes, it is good that Part 4 means that any new reserve land goes straight into schedule 4—that is fantastic.
But what else does Part 4 do? Again, it completely dilutes the role of the Minister of Conservation. One of the really big concerns has been where we have seen the role of the Minister of Conservation undermined—no pun intended—
Hon Phil Heatley: Very clever, though.
MOANA MACKEY: —and replaced by Order in Council. Did you like that, Mr Heatley? It was not bad, was it? It has been completely undermined. The role of the Minister of Conservation is basically to be the guardian of the Department of Conservation land for the public of New Zealand. That is their role. They are there to ensure that future generations of New Zealanders will continue to enjoy the beauty, the biodiversity, and everything that our conservation estate has to offer.
Here we are in Part 4 and, for example, clause 64 amends section 5 of the Reserves Act 1977 by removing the ability of the Minister of Conservation to declare State forest land to be a reserve under the Reserves Act. That might not seem like a big deal to a lot of people, but, again, this is death by a thousand cuts to the Minister of Conservation. And we have had endless examples of that, through every single part of this bill. It is a shame that we did not get a longer debate on Part 1, actually, because we did not even manage to get to all the powers that are being removed from the Minister of Conservation in Part 1. But here it is in Part 4. We had it in Part 2 and we had it in Part 3. Here is Part 4, a seemingly innocuous part of the bill that does a good thing, which is ensuring that all new reserve land goes into schedule 4. Yet again—time and time again—it is taking away the powers of the Minister of Conservation to be able to effectively protect the Department of Conservation estate. So that is clause 64—that is one example: the removal of the power to declare State forest land to be a reserve under the Reserves Act.
If we go to section 6 of the Reserves Act 1977, this provides the Minister of Conservation with powers in cases where there might be doubt or uncertainty about a reserve. This is a very important role that the Minister of Conservation carries out, because from time to time—and I suspect marine reserves in particular are a classic example—you are going to get uncertainty or doubts about what was agreed about where boundaries might lie and about the rules of engagement in terms of how people are able to utilise that reserve land. There are endless reasons why concerns might be raised or there might be difficulties with determining what actually was agreed to in the case of a reserve. It is the role of the Minister of Conservation to ensure that, in deciding how that is worked out or sorted out amongst the various parties that disagree, the best interests of the conservation estate and the preservation of the conservation estate are absolutely paramount.
So what are we doing in Part 4 of this bill? What we are doing is again inserting, through this amendment bill, new legislation that takes power away from the Minister of Conservation and gives to the Governor-General the power to declare that the land is or is not a nature reserve or a scientific reserve. It says that this power overrides the powers of the Minister in section 6 of the current Reserves Act. So you know what that means. That means that the Government and Cabinet get to make the decision—because the Governor-General is not going to go out there and have a look. I mean, his role is kind of a formal one. This is the Government again taking away the powers of the Minister of Conservation, who is the particular Minister to have sole responsibility for that, and giving those powers over to a Cabinet that, by its very deeds thus far, has shown us that it is not really interested—
Andrew Little: You know who the Cabinet Minister is.
MOANA MACKEY: —in protecting the conservation. That is right: Steven Joyce, the Minister for Economic Development, will be making this decision. It will not be the best interests of the conservation estate and the protection and preservation of the conservation estate for future generations that will be paramount when the Governor-General is making those decisions about whether to declare that land is or is not a nature reserve or is or is not a scientific reserve. That is not appropriate. Again, it is diluting away the powers of the Minister of Conservation.
But that is not the end of Part 4 and the diluting of powers of the Minister of Conservation. Clause 67 of this bill makes another change to section 16 of the Reserves Act. Under section 16 of the Reserves Act reserves are classified by the Minister of Conservation, but under the new section 16A proposed in this amendment bill the Minister will have that power to classify reserves restricted. So the Minister will be able to classify recreation, historic, and scenic reserves, but nature reserves and scientific reserves will be done by Order in Council.
So again here we have a role that the Minister of Conservation rightly carries out. It is appropriate that that is a role of the Minister of Conservation. It is the way it has always been. It has worked well having a Minister whose role it is to be the custodian of the Department of Conservation estate on behalf of current and future generations of New Zealanders. Here again the National Government is saying: “No, Steven Joyce knows better.”, so it will give him that power under Order in Council to make decisions that should be being made—and up to this point are currently being made—by the Minister of Conservation.
But that is not the end of it. Part 4 also amends section 47 of the Reserves Act to provide in future that wilderness areas will be set apart by Order in Council, rather than by the Minister of Conservation. So here we have yet another area where Steven Joyce is going to be determining whether or not wilderness areas are set apart. Again we have the removal of powers that currently sit with the Minister of Conservation.
Part 4 is seemingly not that controversial, but it has been the same with every single part in this bill when you go through it. It is the habit of this National Government in areas where it is clear where the decision-making power lies to remove it from that person and then to provide that it is done through an Order in Council process, which does not have to come to this House, which does not get to be debated, and which does not often get scrutiny, because members of the public probably do not even know what the Order in Council process is, how they can object to it, or how they can take a complaint against it through the Regulations Review Committee, which my colleague Maryan Street chairs.
The Minister who is in the chair at the moment, the Minister for the Environment, was a very active member of that committee. She knows very well about, and has a great respect for, good regulations, so I am sure she is appalled at so much more being put through these regulatory processes, away from the ability of the public to scrutinise them adequately and away from the ability of the public to make complaints. As I said, I think maybe even members of this House are not sure about how they would take a complaint against a process that was carried out by Order in Council. Even if they can take a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee, the grounds upon which they can complain are very narrow—very narrow.
So instead of having that broader debate where the Minister and the public know that this is the person who makes these decisions—this is the person who classifies reserves, and this is the person who, if there is any uncertainty, we go to, to clarify what the position is—now it is being done through this process that is very, very away from the public, difficult to understand, and difficult to access, frankly, compared with going through the Minister, because the Government does not want to have that level of scrutiny.
That makes me wonder what it has planned for the conservation estate. Why is it trying to make it difficult by pushing everything through by Order in Council? And under this Reserves Act, this is particularly worrying because this is where we have the schedule 4 land. This is the most precious land in the conservation estate, and this is where it is classified. What is the Government planning to do that it wants to make all these processes go through Order in Council rather than openly and transparently going through a Minister who is then open to judicial review, in a way that the Order in Council process is not? I think we know the answer to that. It is, as I have said before, that we have mineral companies out there now prospecting in schedule 4 land. They are not spending money on looking just for curiosity. They are not spending money on looking just for the hell of it.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Part 4 of the bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, is deeply troubling. It is consistent with the changes elsewhere in the bill to deliberately weaken the powers of the Minister of Conservation, and it establishes a new process, as Moana Mackey has highlighted, where it will be Cabinet through Order in Council, rather than the Minister of Conservation, that makes decisions about how reserves should be classified and what their protected status should be.
There is a large area of conservation land that is stewardship land. That means it has not got the additional protection that reserve status, such as scientific reserve or nature reserve, would provide. That reserve status does provide additional statutory protection when you have applications to do activities in the reserve areas that might destroy the vegetation and modify the habitat values. The Reserves Act is providing that stronger statutory protection for areas that have the ecological or scenic values that deserve reserve status. So what this part of the bill is doing is making sure that it is a Cabinet decision, rather than a decision by the Minister of Conservation, as it is at the moment, to gazette the reserve and to improve the protective status. Areas that would be affected are potentially a large area of forest south of the Cook River in South Westland, which is part of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. The Department of Conservation was charged with undertaking a national park investigation into this area in the late 1980s, but it never had the resources to do that.
Now none of that land could be reclassified as scientific reserve or nature reserve without it going through Cabinet. That will mean, of course, that there will be other Ministers who will object to that, and we will have what happened when the Kahurangi National Park was established. Areas that have mineral potential, like Sams Creek, were being excluded from the park, even though they should be part of the park because of their ecological values. Areas like the Mōhikinui catchment were also excluded, because there was lobbying at the time the national park was established to exclude these areas, even though the investigations by the Conservation Authority had clearly shown that areas like Mōhikinui had status that deserved to be part of the national park.
So the problem here is that the technical, scientific, and ecological reasons for a change in the land status are being dismissed, and you are getting political considerations of whether that land can be available for exploitation, which will determine whether it is gazetted as a nature reserve or a scientific reserve, or whether the protective status is upgraded. Similarly with wilderness areas, because that provides for the same process. The Paparoa wilderness area, when it was established, was controversial because of the mineral potential. So we will see, as has happened with the marine reserves on the West Coast, where you get commercial industry involved, that they will lobby hard, behind closed doors, and not through the public process, and the areas that are finally protected will shrink quite considerably.
But one of the very troubling things in section 24(9), inserted by clause 68 of this Part 4 of the bill, is where it talks about a change to the classification or the revocation of the reservation status. That potentially means that if the land status is changed, areas that go up into schedule 4 that are supposedly protected will be open for mining. I think that is what the Government’s intention is. It says it is about permanent protection through schedule 4, but this clause means that that land status can be revoked. It may not be revoked over the whole of the reserve area, but it could potentially be revoked over a part of an area, which, if it is in schedule 4 at the moment, would then be opened up and available for mining.
So this provision, which allows for revocation without any obvious public process, is a potential way in which the Government can undermine the protective status of a lot of areas of conservation land. Certainly there are some criteria in section 24(10), inserted by clause 68, that the Minister must be satisfied that the reserve is no longer suitable for the purposes of its classification, but the wording in that clause is very general: “or for any other similar cause;”. That is very broad. That is giving the Minister a lot of discretion when he or she is bullied by Cabinet colleagues that the economic benefits, the jobs that will be created, outweigh the ecological values of that land. That is because that is what this Government is about—short-term jobs and exploitation rather than having areas properly protected and getting the legal recognition that they deserve because of the biodiversity, landscape, and habitat values that would see them classified as a scientific reserve or a nature reserve.
The fact that this applies to wilderness areas is also really troubling. Wilderness areas were established to provide areas that do not have tracks or huts, and where people can experience nature in a completely unmodified way. They can rely on their own resources. Wilderness areas come from a tradition of recognising that there are some areas that we want to set aside that are totally undisturbed, except by factors like climate change. This provision in relation to wilderness areas is potentially going to reduce the ability to have large wilderness areas that protect the capacity for people to walk, to climb, to enjoy those areas that are untracked, and to camp. Again, it is just this whole weakening of the Minister’s powers that the bill is all about and this is one of the worst provisions of the bill for that. Thank you.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which amends the Reserves Act 1977. I am caused a great deal of concern by this part of the bill, and I wish to continue the theme that my colleague Moana Mackey outlined earlier. As the chair of the Regulations Review Committee I am very aware of the process of scrutiny, which is the only process of scrutiny that regulations have in our Parliament. Many members are aware of that, but, as Moana Mackey said, many members of the public are not, and are not aware of the checks and balances that are available through the scrutiny of regulation. The point of this is that clauses in Part 4 hand over the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation from primary legislation to regulation. Regulations do not come before this House for scrutiny. Primary legislation like this, like a bill, does, but regulations do not. Regulations are promulgated by Cabinet. They are taken to the Executive Council, where the Governor-General signs them, and they become, once the Governor-General has signed them, Orders in Council. So they do not ever come to this House for scrutiny. The only way a check or balance can be applied to them is through the Regulations Review Committee, which scrutinises every regulation and every Order in Council that the executive—that is, the Government—promulgates.
So I have great difficulty with these bits of Part 4 that divest the Minister of Conservation of the responsibility for declaring that land is or is not a nature reserve or a scientific reserve, or declare that a reserve must be held for the purpose of a nature reserve or a scientific reserve—and that particular clause is subject to a Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 210, from the Minister of Energy and Resources anyway. But, in addition, in clause 69, section 47(1) of the Reserves Act is amended to say: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council”—this process I have just described—“made on the recommendation of the Minister, (a) set apart the whole or any specified part of a reserve as a wilderness area: (b) vary or revoke any order made under this subsection.” So, by regulation, something that was a wilderness area may not be or become or remain a wilderness area, if I read this correctly. If I am reading it wrongly, I invite the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, to correct me, but it seems to me that in section 47(1)(b) as amended: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister … vary or revoke any order made under this subsection.” That includes setting apart the whole or any specified part of a reserve as a wilderness area.
My particular worry about this at the moment is enhanced by a visit that I paid over the Easter break to a very famous wilderness area around the Dart River. There is a proposal on the books that the Minister of Conservation is taking upon himself to decide on, which is whether or not a tunnel should be built, excavated, dug—mined, if you like—through those mountains in that wilderness area in order to cut down the travel for tourists to Milford Sound by about 5 hours each way. I use this as an example because I am concerned that if it is possible for the status or the setting apart of the whole or any specified part of a reserve or wilderness area to be revoked by regulation, then this Government is seeking to deliberately lose control of parts of our environment that are hugely valuable. Not only is this particular part of New Zealand—around the top of Lake Wakatipu and Glenorchy and that area surrounding the Routeburn Track—a World Heritage area, but it is recognised as a wilderness area. And should that status or the purpose of that be able to be amended by regulation alone, then all of a sudden it may be possible for people to be confronting activity in that area, such as excavating a tunnel or putting down oil drilling equipment or whatever—mining equipment of any sort—and setting that into the environment without anybody knowing except the Regulations Review Committee.
That is a serious, serious consideration for this Parliament to make. That such a thing might be possible by regulation absolutely flies in the face of what this Parliament should be doing. It should be protecting and upholding and enforcing and enhancing by primary legislation laws that protect our environment, and not allowing potential destruction of our environment and the overturning of primary legislation by regulation to proceed and to be passed in this way. This is a real concern. It is not about only the potential damage. I hope I am not reading too much into it. I am an optimist by nature, but I am deeply concerned that there is a sinister agenda behind this.
I am concerned also not only by the content of this but by the process that is exemplified by this particular part of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Part 5, in amending—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 4.
Hon MARYAN STREET: Sorry—Part 4. I beg your pardon. I flipped the page. Part 4, which amends the Reserves Act 1977, should be something that allows proper scrutiny, and the alteration of legislation that should be the remit of the Minister of Conservation to administer, protect, and uphold, having been passed by Parliament, should not be subjected to Orders in Council, which do not get parliamentary scrutiny. So I have deep, deep concerns about Part 4 on content and on process. Thank you.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 4 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Part 5 Amendments to Wildlife Act 1953
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to take just a brief call in relation to Part 5 and actually ask the Minister to put on record the answer to one question that I have. I know that the Minister in the chair, Amy Adams, is not the Minister who is primarily responsible for the legislation, but I assume, because of her background, that she is competent to actually answer it, so I would really appreciate an answer to that.
In the Chamber last night we had one question to the Minister of Energy and Resources, who is responsible for the legislation, which was in relation to whether or not he had a legal opinion about the potential breach, in relation to this bill, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in Supplementary Order Paper 205, which he dumped on the country on Easter Sunday. If the Minister in the chair wants to answer that question as well, that would be fantastic, but that is not the one I want her to answer.
Almost the total purpose of Part 5—almost the entire part—of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is related to a simple change, which is to change the Order in Council provisions and regime, or on the recommendation of the Minister. The change is to replace “by Proclamation” with the new term: “by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister”. My question to the Minister is twofold. Firstly, why is that considered to be more appropriate in this legislation? Why is it more appropriate to have an Order in Council or the recommendation of the Minister, rather than the current regime, which I assume has been in place since 1953 and which is by proclamation? And the second part of that question, which is directly related, asks whether this is going to be the regime from now on. Are we going to see this sort of change in other legislation? Obviously, if that is the case, what is the driver for it? What is the benefit that we will see as a result of that change in procedure?
As I said, I understand that Minister Adams is not the Minister who is primarily responsible for it, but I also know her background and consider that she would be able to answer that question quite easily, and, therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if she did. If she has any information to share with the Committee that neither the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, nor the Minister primarily responsible for this legislation, the Hon Simon Bridges, were able or willing to share with the Committee in relation to the legal opinion on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Simon Bridges, then that would be even more greatly appreciated.
That is the only question I want to ask, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I support my colleague Ruth Dyson’s call for clarity. I think Part 5 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is another example of changes that are allegedly technical, but the submitters really struggled with those changes. For them, there was a fear that, once again, changes were being made in order to privilege Cabinet over the Minister, or Order in Council over proclamation. Again, people did not know why. There was not a rationale for changing this. The Wildlife Act 1953, which was passed the year I was born, has been functioning for a very long time. It is there to protect some of the most amazing wildlife in the world. If you look at the Auckland Islands, Zealandia, Kāpiti Island, Hauturu—some of these places are not Wildlife Act reserves, but some of them are. What people want to know is what is going on, why we are changing this, what the point is, and how we can trust it.
The whole issue with the Crown Minerals Act is because of the purpose—other parts being so clearly about privileging one industry. People at the Commerce Committee hearings were deeply distrustful of other changes. They were not satisfied with superficial rationales about Part 5. They were not convinced that wildlife would be protected any more than reserves or other parts of the Department of Conservation estate—other areas that have been set aside before, by the years of hard work of many, many people to protect them. The people at the hearings were not satisfied and they were not clear about it. I do not think that the select committee process made it any clearer. It is unfortunate that my colleague’s questions were not answered. We do not have clarity. No one seems prepared to say why it is better to treat the Wildlife Act provisions in this way, and why it is better to change the provisions in Parts 4 and 5.
People could argue that we should just trust that the Government knows what it is doing, but given Supplementary Order Paper 210, given the rest of this bill, and given this week in Parliament, I do not think that anybody feels like trusting that the best is being done. I think that if legislation is obscure, arcane, difficult to understand, and unclear to people, including those of us who were there, after the select committee process, and if we still do not see why and we have been through this process—because with officials doing their best, the Government did not come clean about its agenda—we get this kind of confusion, and we get this kind of concern. I just wanted to stand up and say that this bill has been dogged by the myth that it contains just technical and administrative changes, when it is a fundamental shift in values. The Government has misread the values of this country. We do not privilege minerals over all else. We want proper law and proper regimes that actually create fairness and protection for sustainable things. That has not happened. This bill has gone the other way, and so there is no trust around Part 5. There is no trust around any of the rest of it. I think that Supplementary Order Paper 205, which was produced on Easter Sunday—the Petrobras burning of the bridges—was a classic example. Thank you very much.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I want to take just a brief call on this part of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and the amendments to the Wildlife Act, because that piece of legislation is not a widely known—or wildly known—piece of legislation, and it has been around for a long time. It is an important piece of legislation and goes hand in hand—or hand in glove, or hand in paw, perhaps—with many other important conservation and environmental pieces of legislation that we have in this country. It has served us well, without too much fiddling around, for a long time. So when we are presented with amendments to the Wildlife Act in the context of legislation covering mining, minerals, exploration, and the production processes associated with them, we need to look carefully and somewhat askance, I would have thought, at the measures before we blindly go ahead and support them.
I note that the principal amendment being made, which is to section 9 of the Wildlife Act, is to change the references to “by Proclamation” to the term “by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister”. And herein lies the very same problem we have seen in other parts of the bill, which my colleagues Ruth Dyson and Moana Mackey have spoken about eloquently and with conviction, I might add, in a way that we do not often see in speeches about the Wildlife Act.
I just want to reiterate the concern that we have that is about the traducing of the rights of the Minister of Conservation, which is redolent throughout this bill at a time when our country—we talked in the House only earlier this afternoon about the prospect of a million Chinese tourists coming down here—is marketing itself as a clean, green nation, and a nation that presents to the world its conservation estate, its flora, and its fauna as a selling point. That has historically been protected by the Minister of Conservation with the powers that that Minister has, but those powers are being undermined by so many parts of this legislation and in no less a way than in Part 5, with the amendments to the Wildlife Act. It is for that reason that, as with the other parts of the bill, when it comes to Part 5, we express great concern about that and advise to the Committee great caution when proceeding with changes of this nature. So it is for that reason that we are opposing not just the other parts of this bill but Part 5 in particular, and the unnecessary fiddling around with the Wildlife Act 1953, which I know has been very important not just to many New Zealanders but to the Department of Conservation rangers, even with their remodelled department now, their revised job descriptions, and the change processes that they will be undergoing. So on that basis we express great caution and, reluctantly, opposition to these particular changes to the otherwise innocuous piece of legislation that is the Wildlife Act 1953.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 5 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1A
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 1A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to schedule 1A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Noes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1A as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Schedule 1A as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2
A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 4
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 4 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am pleased to be able to take what is probably going to be the final call in the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill on the title and commencement—
Moana Mackey: For you.
Hon RUTH DYSON: For me; I am sure that other colleagues will want to make a contribution as well. The first query I want to raise—and I do hope that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Tremain, is better able to answer questions that are addressed by members of the Committee than the other Ministers who have been sitting in the chair—is in relation to the commencement date. This is actually a really unusual situation. The original provision was that any provision that has not been brought into force earlier comes into force on the day that is 2 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson is very attentive to detail, and I would encourage him to take a call and tell me whether he has ever heard of such a rigmarole of commencement as that—any provision that has not been brought into force earlier comes into force on the day that is 2 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. It is a bit of a challenge. The next bill that we are debating, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, fortunately has a much more straightforward commencement provision, which is some time in the past. It may be equally contentious, but it is quite different.
The commencement provisions in this bill we are debating are very unusual. I would really appreciate the Minister of Conservation making a contribution in regard to that original proposed commencement date and then on why it was replaced with, again, a very complicated regime: “This Act comes into force on the earlier of the following: (a) the date appointed by the Governor-General”—not, as is usual, on the date of assent but—“by Order in Council: (b) the day that is 2 years after the date on which the Act receives the Royal assent.” Again, it is quite an unusual provision. So that is my first question to the Minister, and I strongly encourage him to take up the mandate of sitting in the chair and answering the question.
He could answer the earlier question that I posed to Minister Adams in relation to proclamation, because that was not answered either, or he could answer the earlier question that I put to the Minister who is primarily responsible for this legislation, the Hon Simon Bridges, in relation to any legal advice he received on Supplementary Order Paper 205, which he dumped on the country on Easter Sunday. Simon Bridges did not answer that question either. They are all important matters. It is the only opportunity we get in this Chamber, and, frankly, I wonder why some of these Ministers draw their salary. They sit in the chair, read the paper, fill out the crossword puzzle, or read some important briefing papers that are significant to the future of the country, but they do not take up what should be their responsibility and answer questions from members in Parliament. If they are not up to the job, I consider that they should swap with somebody who is. The Hon Maurice Williamson is sitting there, and I have never known him to resist an opportunity to make a contribution to a debate, even if he is obviously unaware of any detail in relation to the particular matter. It has never stopped him from taking a call in this House before.
I now want to refer to the title of this bill. This bill sounds pretty much like it will not do much harm. It is the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Well, I think the title overlooks one of the biggest concerns that we have had with this bill. The title does not refer to it at all, and it should. This bill is about the muzzling or bulldozing or sidelining of the Minister of Conservation in regard to significant matters of decision-making power, and that should be reflected in the title. It should be called something like the “Bulldozing of the Minister of Conservation Bill”. That would not be far from the truth. It could refer to the outcome of this legislation, because what is going to happen is that our conservation values are going to be put aside, and the economic benefit test—where money is made for some company not even necessarily based in New Zealand or contributing to the New Zealand tax system—will win out over our conservation values, which we have held so dear as part of the fabric of New Zealand society for so long. So we could just call the bill the “Money Over Values Bill”, because, actually, that is going to be the outcome. What I think is a bit of a cheating of the New Zealand public is having a title of a bill that does not in any way refer to the outcome, which will be, as I said, those conservation values getting trampled over, and the Minister of Conservation having his or her throat squashed to the point where just a squeak will come out, not a strong, clear advocacy voice as we have had in the past.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am disappointed that the Minister in the chair did not take heed of what my colleague Ruth Dyson said in answer to her question about the commencement date. I think it has been disappointing this afternoon that we posed a number of questions to the Ministers in the chair and all of them have sat there like dried arrangements and done nothing. None of them have gotten up on their pins and actually answered the questions. That is actually what the Committee stage is meant to be about.
This bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, is a very, very serious piece of legislation. It has very, very serious implications, not just for the conservation estate but for the general public and their ability to oppose the Government’s plans to ramp up deep-sea oil and gas exploration, and what it means for the Minister of Conservation. So it is disappointing that the Minister has chosen not to answer my colleague’s question about the commencement date, but he will, of course, have an opportunity in this part.
Well, I too do not believe that the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill adequately reflects as a title what this piece of legislation actually does. I think that if I had to rename it, I would probably start by calling it the “Crown Minerals (This Is The Only Plan We Have) Bill”, because that is the reality of what we are doing here. Regardless of what you might think of oil and gas exploration and mining—some people are for it, some people are against it, and some people are in the middle—I do not think that there is anyone who would believe that this should be the only thing that we do in terms of economic development and jobs. I do not think there are many people, even in Taranaki, who would say that this is the only thing that is happening in Taranaki and that this is the only thing that creates jobs. But to listen to Government members, you would think that it is the only thing, because they have put all their eggs in this one basket. This is it. If this does not work, they have no plan B. So if all these jobs and all this money that they have been saying for years is going to flow from more oil and gas exploration and more mining—if that does not work, they do not have a plan B.
There is no other plan for economic development and, in particular, regional economic development. That is why we are seeing the kind of legislation being passed today—currently there is the Resource Management Act legislation and the exclusive economic zone legislation, but today there is the Crown minerals legislation—where the Government is trying to undermine this legislation in terms of its protections for the conservation estate and its protections for the environment, in order to make it as easy as possible for industry activity to go ahead regardless of the consequences.
I suspect that this bill could also be called the “Crown Minerals (This Is Going to Cost a Lot More Money Than the Government Seems to Think It Is Going to) Amendment Bill”. The reality is that New Zealanders largely have faith in the process that is currently set out under the Crown Minerals Act, and the Resource Management Act is another example. The minute the public loses faith in that process, it actually becomes a hell of a lot more expensive for industry. When people feel that they have to engage now, they have to appeal, and they have to protest, because they no longer feel that the systems that their Government puts in place are systems that they can trust, that will uphold the highest levels of health and safety, and that will uphold the highest levels of environmental protection, and ensure that the preservation of the conservation estate is paramount—as soon as the public loses faith in that process, then it becomes more difficult for industry, not easier.
When the public feels that the process is fair, they will let the process play out. They will play their role in it if that is what they want to do. A lot will not; many will not. But this is a false economy. This bill could be called the “Crown Minerals (False Economy) Amendment Bill”, because this is opening up so much scope for far more legal challenges and far more judicial reviews than under the current system, which has worked well. Members opposite like to talk about Taranaki as being the crowning example of what this activity could achieve for the rest of the country. Well, all that happened under the current Crown Minerals Act. And all that happened under the current Resource Management Act. So why do we have to, really, completely undermine these pieces of legislation when all that is going to happen is it is going to result in it being more difficult for industry, given that we now have processes that the public do not trust?
So, as I said, this is all the Government has. This is why we are taking so much out of the Crown Minerals Act—because it wants to make it as easy as possible. I do not think it is going to have the outcome that it thinks. I think it is actually going to have the perverse outcome of doing the opposite. What we could rename this bill—and we did not know that this was coming up, of course—in relation to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 205 to stop protest vessels in the exclusive economic zone from interfering with installations or with vessels, would be the “Crown Minerals (Some Dangerous Behaviour Will Be Outlawed, but the Rest Won’t) Amendment Bill”, because the ridiculous situation that we find ourselves in is that the Government is saying that this is about safety and about complying with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Well, that is all very well and good, but then why does it not apply to every vessel in the exclusive economic zone?
If it is about safety, then why should we not apply the same standard to commercial operators of any kind, whether they be petroleum exploration or fisheries or cruise ships or protest vessels? Why should everyone not have the same level of scrutiny and legal obligation as we are putting on these protest vessels? Currently, under what we are passing here, an activity that would be deemed illegal in our territorial waters under the Maritime Transport Act is not covered by this, unless it is a protest ship and that protest ship is protesting specifically against petroleum and mineral exploration. That is the ridiculous law that we are going to pass here, and no member of the National Government has stood up and addressed that particular point.
Then we had Minister Finlayson. I was embarrassed to see the Attorney-General come down to the Chamber to defend this. We thought he must have a legal opinion. We thought that he must have got a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to challenge the legal opinion produced by Greenpeace and the group of New Zealanders who have supported it, and he had not. He had nothing. We could call this legislation the “Crown Minerals (The Legal Opinion You Have When You Don’t Have a Legal Opinion) Bill”, because two Ministers stood up and basically implied that they had legal opinions that supported that Supplementary Order Paper. When they were asked to table them, neither of them could, because they do not exist.
This Supplementary Order Paper is not compliant with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This does not comply with our international obligations. It is an embarrassment, and that is because this Government has mishandled the issue of oil and gas exploration, particularly in the exclusive economic zone, so badly—it has mishandled it to such an extreme—that the public are taking to the seas in protest because that is the only way they feel they can get the Government’s attention. And they got the attention of the Government, all right. The Government is now legislating away the public’s right to oppose what the Government does. That is completely outrageous and it is an embarrassment for an Attorney-General, whose job it is to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, to come down to the Chamber and defend it. It would have been better if he had just ignored it, and not come down here and put on the petty show that he did, attacking Geoffrey Palmer, attacking Dame Anne Salmond—New Zealander of the Year—in a display that can be described only as waspish and not becoming of our Attorney-General. And then, at the end of it, to not even have a legal opinion—apart from his own opinion; I guess he is a lawyer and that is a kind of legal opinion—and to not actually have done the work to back up what he was saying, that is a shame on this country that our Attorney-General does not take his very important constitutional role far more seriously.
My colleague Ruth Dyson talked about the fact that powers have been taken away from the Minister of Conservation. I remember that press conference where Gerry Brownlee sat next to Kate Wilkinson and said: “This will be a shared decision-making power.”, and the visual image just said it all, really. Minister Wilkinson sat there and said absolutely nothing and was completely dwarfed by Minister Brownlee, who was the Minister of Energy and Resources at the time and who completely ran the whole press conference. He ran the show. So this could be called the “Crown Minerals (No One Really Believes It’s a Shared Decision-making Power) Bill”, because the fact is that the Minister of Energy and Resources is now in charge of determining whether or not mining will go ahead on conservation land. We know that will then skew the current balanced approach towards industry, regardless of the impact on our very, very valuable and precious conservation land.
This is a very important role that the Minister of Conservation carries out on behalf of the people of New Zealand. The Minister of Conservation is the custodian of the Department of Conservation estate, and it is entirely appropriate that that is the person who determines whether the impact on conservation land is such that an activity should go ahead or should not go ahead, and now that has been stripped out. Now it is this shared decision-making power. As I said, no one believes it is a shared decision-making power. This is, once again, a National Government that is so bereft of ideas to create jobs and to grow our economy that it is having to make these kinds of changes in order to smooth the way as much as possible for these activities, regardless of whether they are carried out responsibly. Where they are carried out responsibly and with minimal environmental impact, that is fine. That is what the current system allows for, and that is absolutely fine. But that is not what is happening here. Now we are saying: “Actually, that goes out the window.”, and the impact on this conservation land—and we will see, I think, more mining projects on schedule 4 land, because companies are out there right now, having a look at what is out there, prospecting. You do not pay the money to look, unless you have been told that you are going to be allowed to go in and get. That is the reality. So that is a broken promise. This could be called the “Crown Minerals (Schedule 4 Promise Broken—Surprise, Surprise) Amendment Bill”, because clearly the industry has been told that schedule 4 will be opened up or relaxed.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call in this Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. We are looking now at the title and commencement clauses of this legislation. In earlier calls I talked about how it could be called the “Petrobras Law Bill”. Perhaps we could call Supplementary Order Paper 205, which now will be included in this legislation, the “Anadarko amendment”. I also suggested that we could maybe call it the “A Bridge Too Far Bill”, because of the way it tramples on our constitutional and human rights and the freedom to protest, which successive New Zealand Governments and generations have held up as an honourable tradition and a key part about what it is to be a New Zealander—someone who sticks up for our values and our principles on the world stage.
In earlier calls the Minister directly levelled a number of questions around economic management in my direction, and that is why I would contend that, actually, this legislation should be called the “Crown Minerals (Lazy Economic Gamble) Bill”. I say “lazy economic gamble” because this is the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. We have seen the worst economic performance in 50 years, yet—
Hon Ruth Dyson: 51, I think, now.
GARETH HUGHES: —51 years, Ms Dyson says—all the Government can point to is oil and gas as its strategy. We have seen some economic benefits in Taranaki, and I am the first to say that the Green Party is not opposed to shallow offshore drilling. We are not opposed to onshore drilling. We think we should have a transition strategy, because, look, even the International Energy Agency—hardly a bastion of radical green thought—is saying that we need to leave 80 percent of the oil that we already know about, not discounting the stuff we do not know about, which Anadarko and Petrobras were prospecting for, in the ground. We have to leave 80 percent of it in the ground if we are going to avoid runaway climate change. So the Greens are not opposed to onshore shallow drilling. We think we should have a transition strategy.
But, look, this is not an economic strategy for the country. We have got such a high unemployment rate at the moment, yet when we look at Taranaki, it has got the lowest job-creating potential of any sector in that economy. When you look at its economic statistics, for every $1.2 million of GDP, you see only one worker employed in the oil and gas sector. In agriculture it is 15, and in retail it is 33. I am the first to acknowledge there are many high-paid jobs, but if jobs is your question, oil and gas is not the answer to building a large number of workers. Take the Government’s East Coast oil and gas report. The most likely scenario there said we might see 199 jobs. I would love to see 199 extra jobs on the East Coast, because that region is really struggling under this Government’s economic stewardship. But this region has lost more than 900 jobs in manufacturing alone in the first 4 years of the National Government’s term. Even if the most likely scenario went ahead and we saw dozens of fracking wells up and down the East Coast, the region is still going backwards under National. So if jobs is the question, and it rightfully is, oil and gas is not the answer.
It is a lazy economic gamble, because the entire premise is the hope that some foreign offshore company will come down here, find something, and sell it offshore. There is hardly any value-add. There is hardly any benefit for our economy. We have got the fourth-lowest royalty plus tax rate of any oil-producing nation in the world. We are going to benefit less than most other nations in the world. Simon Bridges’ predecessor, Phil Heatley, made it easier to bring in foreign offshore oil workers. He amended the immigration rules and made 11 oil worker positions able to be expedited through the skilled shortages list. We know there are going to be fewer New Zealanders working in the sector, so this is why I think the bill should be called the “Lazy Economic Gamble Bill”. It is lazy. There is no innovation, there is no plan, and there is no strategic thought. There is no sense of where the global economic trends are going, how New Zealand can shape its economy, how we can turn this direction, and how we can address some of the structural imbalances in our economy.
It is lazy, because clearly the trends are moving away from oil. This is what the International Energy Agency says, and this is what the IMF says. In the last month we have seen reports from HSBC and others, such as Standard and Poor’s, saying that, actually, with the risks of climate change and global high energy prices, we are seeing a similar occurrence to the subprime mortgages in the States. Essentially, these oil assets that some of these big oil majors have are toxic, because they cannot be developed at the moment. All the trends are going in one direction. When you look at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report from 2011, it showed that for the first time ever more money was invested in clean energy than fossil fuels—the first time ever, in 2011. This is the direction we should be taking our country. So instead of the “Crown Minerals (Lazy Economic Gamble) Bill”, we should have a new energy bill to focus on the current century’s economic trend.
This is what PricewaterhouseCoopers says when it says we could have a $22 billion economic opportunity in clean energy. It is what the likes of Pure Advantage says in its recent report on the green economy—that we could see 3,000 jobs, which the energy Minister says we could see if we develop an entire new petroleum basin. Of course, that is direct and indirect jobs. But we could see 50,000 green jobs in New Zealand if we embraced clean energy. You see the likes of Greenpeace saying 100 percent renewable is possible. We could be saving $600 million per annum. We could be reducing that $8 billion fuel import, which I contend is one of the most significant strategic threats to our economy. The Government’s deficit is of a similar order of magnitude. Making a dent in that $8 billion fuel import bill would make a huge difference to the Crown’s books, instead of a lazy economic gamble that bets it all on the hope that foreign offshore oil companies find something, which, again, is still up in the air.
I understand that in our exploratory wells there is in the order of less than half the likelihood of offshore averages of striking oil. We are called a frontier region to the offshore oil zone. What we know, of course, is we are going to see hardly any royalties, hardly any taxes, and hardly any jobs for New Zealanders. All the profits are going to flow offshore, but then we are going to face 100 percent of the environmental risks. This is what my motivation is, because I do not want to see oil washing up on our beaches. I do not want to see our agricultural sector, our tourism sector, or our horticultural sector devastated by an oil spill.
What we know is that the exploratory drilling phase, which is what we are talking about with this Government, is the riskiest phase. A month ago the European Union put out a report saying that exploratory drilling is the riskiest phase. What we are talking about with deep-sea oil drilling is operating at the frontiers of geology, geography, and technology. We are talking about an environment that is a kilometre deep or deeper. Just off my home town of Wellington, the permit the Government has recently given to the very same company that had a 25 percent stake in the Deepwater Horizon $40 billion oil spill, Anadarko, is 2.7 kilometres down. There, the pressure would crush a person in a second. It is pitch-black and close to freezing, yet the oil they are prospecting for is coming out close to boiling. It is the frontiers of geology and technology because we just still do not know what is down there, despite advances in a modern seismic 3-D survey and computer mapping tools. You can still have an accident, and that is what we have seen in Azerbaijan, that is what we have seen with the Montara oil spill in Australia in 2009, and that is what we have seen with Deepwater Horizon. The spill there had an oil exclusion zone almost as large as the North Island.
Tragically, I do not think we were well enough prepared for the Rena oil spill. We struggled with 300 tonnes of oil entering our marine environment there. With the Deepwater Horizon deep-sea oil blowout, we saw up to 600,000 tonnes of oil entering the environment. The US Government had a thousand vessels and 40,000 people working on that spill. Maritime New Zealand in New Zealand has got three vessels—well, they are really dinghies. They are a similar size to the skimmers. We have got approximately 200 to 300 staff. Our oil spill response capacity is minuscule compared with the US Government.
We are a frontier region, far from international oil infrastructure. The only solution to the Deepwater Horizon blowout was the relief rig, which drilled a relief well to take off the pressure so it could be capped. This is possibly the most worrying factor for New Zealand, because this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill does nothing about protecting us by having a relief rig in New Zealand waters. I got the Parliamentary Library, in December last year, to map where relief rigs capable of drilling to the depths of where we are planning to drill exploratory wells in New Zealand were located in the southern hemisphere. I understand there were three in the entire Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. We could be waiting weeks or months for a relief rig to finally travel to New Zealand, if it could be found, if it could be contracted, to finally drill a relief well and plug a well.
So until we can get a guarantee from this Government and until we can get a guarantee from the industry that we will not see oil spills—similar to shallow drilling in New Zealand, which has been done, on the whole, pretty well—and until we can see similar safety standards, the Green Party is going to say no to deep-sea oil drilling. But we are going to say yes to clean energy, we are going to say yes to clean energy jobs, and we are going to say yes to an accurate and fair carbon price that has a level playing field. We are not going to pick winners in oil and gas, which is what the Government is doing. We are not going to throw tens of millions of dollars at seismic surveys. We are not going to literally call out the navy and change the laws when people get in the way. The Green Party is going to have a smart, future-focused economy. We are not going to introduce legislation that could—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): The previous speech was very interesting, with a lot of facts provided by the member, Gareth Hughes, who, indeed, identified some of the many concerns we have. I will talk on the title and the commencement clauses of this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. There are a couple of issues here that I would like to raise.
The title of the Act is to be the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Act 2012. The bill deals with a lot of issues, there have been Supplementary Order Papers come up, and the Commerce Committee recommended a few amendments. The most valuable contribution that this bill provides, in my view, is the implementation of better health and safety standards and requirements at every level of the permitting regime.
There is one thing I would say with regard to the title. Given that the Pike River disaster identified and alerted us to huge flaws, problems, and systemic failure in the regime that oversees minerals extraction in this country, probably the least we could have done was acknowledge the changes that are being made as a result of that disaster and, I guess, give recognition to the terrible loss. It might have been fair to consider changing the title of this bill, which will become an Act, to recognise that some of the key provisions and the greatest advancements made by this bill will be in the area of health and safety.
It still will not guarantee the implementation of the standards, because unless the Government and the Minister carefully read the report provided yesterday to the Labour Group of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, accept it and admit total systems failure, right from the top to the bottom, and revamp and resource it, the changes made in this bill will not mean as much as we think they might or as much as they should.
So the title, which we are debating at the moment at the latter stage of debate on this bill, could perhaps have been changed to better reflect and recognise the reason that we are making some of these changes here. We are making these changes because of health and safety. We are making these changes for the protection of miners—protection of their lives, and protection of their health and safety—and for their working conditions.
I am, I guess, asking the Committee and the Minister whether we could perhaps have thought better about this. Rather than just plough on with the same title that was delivered to the select committee, changes should have been made to reflect the significant incorporation of Supplementary Order Paper 152, which was a direct result of the report of the royal commission to the Government. And I acknowledge the Government’s taking of that report, reading it, and making the changes necessary.
Another significant change to the title could have been made on the basis that this bill is putting huge pressure on the Department of Conservation. Although it is permitting, it should also be protecting Crown land. What New Zealanders expect and what any landowner wants is the right to have a say over what goes on their land, what occurs on their land, and the rights that they have. As I have said before in the House, although there will be some who think this is a wonderful step forward for the mining industry, the compromising of landowners’ rights—that is, the compromising of the rights of the Minister of Conservation to oversee the land for conservation purposes—sets a precedent that should worry any other landowner as well.
If the Government is so blind and ignorant to the realities of the world that it thinks it can plough ahead with mining at all costs—even though it was challenged over the issue of schedule 4 land and stepped back from that—in an unbalanced way, without proper protections for individuals and without proper protections for natural and environmental values, then it is dreaming. It will undermine the progress that the mining industry has made over the last hundred years in terms of better awareness of environmental protection. I applaud the industry for the progress it has made. But a Government that drives inappropriate change will drive appropriate reaction, and that may very well make it harder for the mining industry to progress some of the projects that it has. So it is a warning about trampling over the rights of landowners, as was the case prior to 1992, when the Crown, which owned the rights to the minerals under the ground, was able to override the rights of the people who owned the ground. We find that rather abhorrent now, but it was the situation until the early 1990s.
The Government has reintroduced some of the principles of that here on the conservation estate, where the landowner—the Minister—does not have the right to have the final say, and there is in fact a compromise situation. Some may see that as comfortable. It is just a warning for other landowners. So the title could have been changed to better reflect some of the significant things that are happening in this bill.
The other issue I will raise is around the commencement date. It will be 2 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. I guess that families and other people who are connected with the Pike River tragedy would say: “Why the delay?”. Indeed, it is upon us to implement as quickly as possible the changes to ensure proper health and safety. The Government will say it has done that, but, actually, if you have a look at what has happened with the resourcing in the Labour Group of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, you will see that it is pretty pathetic. It has got a few more people on the ground, it has got a bit more resource, but whether it is sufficient is a question that I leave open because the damning report into the Labour Group’s systems would say that a total revamp is needed, not just a few people added into the system.
So the delay that the commencement date allows could do two things. It might allow the Government to go away and properly resource it to ensure that the provisions in this bill will be upheld and policed, but it might just mean that the Government carries on with an inadequate regime of health and safety and oversight in the mining industry. I hope the latter is not the case. We need to make sure that any miner who goes underground—be it for prospecting, be it for mining purposes, or be it for the maintenance of a mine, as is the case in Spring Creek—is going to a safe environment and that all the conditions laid down by the company, by the ministry, and by the miners themselves are at the top end of international safety standards.
I have made my points regarding these two issues. I just hope that the progress here in health and safety does indeed deliver us a world-class system of protection of workers as they go into any mining environment, and I have to say that that does not mean just an underground mine; it includes open-cast situations, as well. I have been mining in Australia myself and I understand the dangers. They are not present just in underground mining, and I hope that the Government resources the provisions laid out in this bill to ensure that they indeed can be policed.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): It is customary to come up with parody titles when you are debating the title and commencement clauses of bills in the Committee stage. A parody title that I would like to suggest for this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, is the “Crown Minerals (Lawmaking at its Worst) Bill”, because what we have seen, I think, is a pretty shocking abuse. I use that strong word in a considered manner, because I believe that it is an abuse of the process. What we have seen is lawmaking at its worst. It is as if Simon Bridges has been looking at the tributes to Margaret Thatcher in the last few days and has decided that that is what he is going to model his legislative style on—the most intransigent, iron-willed nature of that formidable Prime Minister.
What we see here is a Minister who has introduced a substantive amendment, which international and legal experts and eminent New Zealanders have said has significant constitutional impacts and is an attack on rights. The Minister introduced this amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 205 on Easter Sunday, when everyone, rightfully, was opening up their Easter eggs and spending time with their family and maybe not watching Q+A in the morning. The Supplementary Order Paper introduces a substantive amendment, but, of course, by being introduced as an amendment it had no select committee scrutiny, it had no Attorney-General New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and it meant that we have seen this amendment—the “Anadarko amendment”, it has been called—introduced and a week later voted on.
The Government would have liked to see the third reading of the bill today. That was not to be the case, so we have another week to organise, and I see that the cyber-petitions are rolling in. There were 10,000 signatures in the first 24 hours, so I am sure there will be a lot more. It is lawmaking at its worst, because by avoiding the select committee hearing you cannot hear from the public and you cannot hear from the experts.
Another bill that I saw raced through the legislative process was with regard to ultra-fast broadband, where $1.35 billion of taxpayers’ money was on the line. That resulted in some embarrassing snafus from the Government’s perspective, and now we are seeing Chorus with a $300 million blowout. If you do not have that public and expert ability to submit, and the ability for the select committee to amend legislation, you have bad consequences. If you do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, I believe that you can have much more severe impacts, not just on the bottom line of a company but on fundamental values that we hold dear—that is, human rights.
I call this bill the “Crown Minerals (Lawmaking at its Worst) Bill” because we should not be addressing legislation to amend the law to benefit one sector. Simon Bridges, in the earlier calls in the Committee stage, was alleging that the Greens would have pro-protester laws. I say that, no, we have laws in New Zealand and they apply to all New Zealanders. But what we see in this legislation is laws specifically targeting one company. You can do the very same thing against a fishing boat and not face the same charges as you will under this legislation when it is finally commenced. It is only one sector that gets impacted. I do not believe that that is lawmaking at its best. We should not be writing laws to benefit one sector.
This legislation contains arrest and detention powers for the military. Again, we should be using these considerable constitutionally important powers sparingly, only in extreme circumstances. We should not be turning the New Zealand Navy into the private security company for the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.
I know that you all read the Green Party blog, Frogblog, and what I have proposed there is—
Hon Maurice Williamson: You have got to be joking.
GARETH HUGHES: Parliament’s IT expert, Mr Williamson, is not a reader of Frogblog, and I am immensely surprised.
Andrew Little: I thought everybody read it.
GARETH HUGHES: Yes, apparently, no one reads it. Not many people read it, when you look at the blog rankings. Anyway, I put up a blog there where I posted my proposal. I am going to take it to the Standing Orders Committee. I am going to introduce it and support what David McGee recommended to the Standing Orders Committee in 2003 with the Wellington District Law Society, which is that we should actually have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet for substantive Supplementary Order Papers. I think it is important. We have, obviously, a unicameral House and considerable legislative powers without the controls that you have in other overseas legislatures. I believe that it is important that we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act overview over substantive Supplementary Order Papers, and I hope that other parties would support a move in that direction. I think it would be a positive step. What we do not want to see is Crown mineral lawmaking and, worse, legislation passing. We want to see lawmaking at its best, and that is what I believe New Zealanders demand of this House. Kia ora.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Clause 1 agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Continental Shelf Amendment Bill, the Reserves Amendment Bill, and the Wildlife Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 208.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendment.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I move, That the report be adopted.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Report adopted.
Bills
Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Can I say how enormously disappointed I am in the Labour Party for having opposed this at the Government Administration Committee and, I assume, for voting against it now. I want to give members of the public a little bit of background about this bill so they understand why it is here. Raymond Huo, the Labour Party spokesman, is saying Maurice Williamson is cleaning up one of the messes he has made. Well, let us get some facts on the table.
This bill is about industry regulation. There are a number of industry regulators out there in the building and construction sector, like the Electrical Workers Registration Board and like the Registered Architects Board, and there are a number of regulators out there that are not in the building sector—for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates pilots and so on, and the Medical Council, which regulates the performance of doctors. So New Zealanders fully expect there to be a regulator that controls behaviour in every one of the industries that are out there. Those bodies that I have just mentioned—the Electrical Workers Registration Board, the Registered Architects Board, the Civil Aviation Authority, and so on—have the right to go after both licensed practitioners and non-licensed practitioners. Imagine if the Civil Aviation Authority could discipline someone who had a pilot’s licence but it could not touch someone who was flying a Boeing 747 every day who did not have a licence. It would just be nonsensical. Imagine if, for example, the Medical Council could deal to you if you were a licensed doctor, but if you were just doing some do-it-yourself brain surgery in your backyard as a friend, it could not touch you.
Well, guess what? The Labour Government passed some legislation in 2006—it was the Labour Government that did it. I am sorry I have to get into the attack here. I was hoping to work genteelly through this. I was quite keen on trying to take this calmly. I even sent this bill off to a select committee that we did not have a majority on, hoping that Ruth Dyson, who is normally a very good chair, would shepherd this through quite calmly and we would get it through. The Labour Government cocked up. In 2006 it passed a bill that did not allow the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to take action against non-licensed practitioners. So the Act that is currently in effect says you can go after those who are licensed and registered, but if somebody arrives from overseas and says: “Oh, I don’t have any qualifications but I’ll do some gasfitting.”, and gets out there with his little Bunsen burner, and starts wiring up some gas tubing, the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, according to the current legislation, cannot touch that person—cannot touch them. And I do not think there is a single New Zealander who thinks that makes sense.
I had a look at the drafting instructions for the bill of 2006. I even had a look at the explanatory note. The Government—the Labour Government—of the day actually did intend for this legislation to cover both licensed and unlicensed practitioners. In other words, the Act was supposed to allow the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board the power to go after anyone practising in the plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying sector. But there was a mistake in the wording, and no one picked it up. I have to say I became the Minister for Building and Construction in 2008 and blissfully went about my life, not worrying about the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 until this issue was discovered. It went to the Regulations Review Committee, and there has been a complaint to the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, and so on. It turns out that there is a mistake in the wording and it is not legal for the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to charge levies and fees to their licensed practitioners but use that money to go after ratbags who are not licensed. It can go after only those who are.
So, yes, these five little clauses—three of which are just basically about the title and what Act it applies to, so really there are only two clauses that are going through here—are retrospective. I am one of the people most ardently opposed to retrospective legislation, except if it is validating what everyone had always thought was the case. Everybody thought the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board had the right to go after cowboys. There was an explosion in the Pizza Hut in Nelson that nearly killed people. It was appalling work, and I am hoping the Labour Opposition is in favour of public safety and does not want practitioners like that to get away scot-free. So why am I bringing this little piece of tidy-up, clean-up? To fix up the former Labour Government’s Act of 2006 because it forgot to put in the wording about non-licensed practitioners as well.
Raymond Huo, that Mensa genius on the Labour Party side, is now claiming that this is Williamson cleaning up his mess. Well, no, it is not. This is cleaning up the former Labour Government’s legislation of 2006. Now Mr Huo has fallen foul of a little group out there called the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Federation. What is being portrayed here—and I am sure members from the other side will claim it—is that there are two large organisations out there representing the plumbers. One is called Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers and the other is called the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Federation. Well, the federation, this little group of people—how do you get to be a member of it? You sign up to its email. You just subscribe to its email. Several of the officials in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment already are members of this little federation simply because they got a copy of its email. These people are out there.
And Raymond Huo—listen to this; this is where it gets really good—is going to move an amendment when we get to the Committee stage that the fees that are collected now do not go to the board but go off to this little group.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Tony dressed him this morning.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Trevor Mallard has got no credibility left if he supports Raymond Huo’s amendment that this money collected would go off to the federation. He wants to pay it to this handful of malcontents. I want to hear from David Parker and David Shearer. David Parker is supposedly the keeper of the purse for the Labour Party, and what Raymond Huo is advocating is that we should not make it retrospective, which would then make the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board insolvent, but that we should take it out of general taxation. How fiscally irresponsible is that! There is not another industry regulator that does not collect fees from its members to pay for enforcement. And somehow we are going to say to this one: “No, that’s all right, the Minister of Finance can dig into the revenue somehow and pay for it—and, by the way, he won’t actually pay it to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, which does the regulating; he’ll pay it off to a handful of people who are the malcontents who come to every meeting and complain about things.” Well, ask Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers what it thinks. It represents about 70 percent of all plumbers. It thinks that this is a legitimate thing to do, because it means we can actually take some control over the behaviour of those cowboys out there. Unless this is passed, the fees that have been collected in the past would be invalid and have to be refunded, so that is why the law is retrospective.
The second clause that is really relevant in this is that it says, going forward from here, that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board can use those fees to go after cowboys. That is as simple as it can be in a nutshell. If any one person out there decides “Well, I don’t know. I’m out of work. I don’t know what I’m going to do. I might go and do some gasfitting. I haven’t got any qualifications. I don’t know about leaks. I don’t know about explosions. We’ll have a crack at it.”, well, under the current law, the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board could not go after them. It cannot touch them. I do not think that there is a single member of this House who thinks that that is acceptable, and I am disappointed even in the Greens. During the first reading, Holly Walker said: “Well, we support in principle what the Minister’s doing here, but he is doing it too quickly.” So I immediately gave the Government Administration Committee more time. I said that, OK, a week is too tough, I understand that. Let us go to a 3-week period where you can hear all the submissions, because this has to be done.
It has to be done, otherwise you are advocating having the rule of the jungle out there in the gasfitting area and, believe me, even in the plumbing area, where a lot of public safety can be put at risk, especially in some high-rise buildings. I want to know that people who are practitioners in that field are actually legitimate and are skilled and competent at a certain level, and that, if they are not, they can be gone after. As I said earlier on, there is not another industry in this country where we would not have that. That is what I want to have in this area, and I am really disappointed. I am hopeful that the Labour Party will actually see some light, have a chat to Raymond Huo out in the back room, and say: “Actually, I think you’ve got this one wrong, old son.” I do not know quite why he has got it wrong. He has somehow listened to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Federation. This is a bill that has to be passed. It is Labour’s mess from 2006 that we are cleaning up. I hope that this Parliament will support it.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want first of all to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his contribution. I know that he feels really strongly about it, but I feel slightly resentful at the insinuation he made that Labour does not support a safe regulatory regime for plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, because he knows that is not true. He knows that is not correct and that we support safety regulation. Had he read the report of the Government Administration Committee, perhaps he would have some inkling of the solutions that we saw going forward. It is a very divided sector, and that, in itself, is pretty unhealthy. Frankly, I do not think that the Minister’s contribution has assisted towards any other way than it remaining divided. I do not think that that is the only leadership position that might have been taken, but, obviously, the Minister decided to barrel ahead with it.
I want to also acknowledge and thank the Minister for giving the select committee more time than he originally did. It took just one request and he immediately granted it, and that was really helpful for us. The original proposal was that we have our briefing, although we were not able to get advisers, because you cannot request advisers until you meet, so we had to, first of all, meet, then ask for advisers, which was immediately granted, then we got our briefing, then we would hear submissions from a small range of individuals, and then we would deliberate—all at one meeting. We were a bit concerned about that, given that even though it is a pretty straightforward issue in terms of what is being addressed, it is not straightforward, because of the complexity within the sector. We were trying to get it right, not add to the mistakes that had been made in the past.
The Minister is also correct in saying that when this legislation, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, was originally introduced it was the intention to have the offences and disciplinary fee funded in the way that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board continued, but he is incorrect in saying that everyone thought that was the case. If they had, there would not have been an issue raised with the Regulations Review Committee and then subsequently with the Ombudsman. So we have had quite a lot of time actually realising that these actions are not within the scope of the legislation. The board understood from the Regulations Review Committee report and then the subsequent Ombudsman’s report that this was outside its jurisdiction.
What the Minister is asking us to do in this legislation is, basically, leave aside that finding from both the Ombudsman and the Regulations Review Committee and say: “Well, that was the intention, therefore we should validate it.” Well, from the perspective of the people who took the complaint, they feel justifiably grumpy about that. They followed proper process. They went to the Regulations Review Committee and they went to the Ombudsman and said “We don’t think the law allows this.”, and both the Regulations Review Committee and the Ombudsman came back and said “That’s correct. It doesn’t.” So this is the way to fix it, but it does not acknowledge the unfairness that those people felt. Nor does it engage with the proper process that they went through. They went to those two organisations, the Regulations Review Committee and the Ombudsman, and I think it is quite a big step to ask Parliament to just ignore the fact that for this considerable length of time that fee and levy have been imposed outside what the scope of the legislation was known to be.
It may be a little group. If it is so little, then it is surprising that it is going to bankrupt the board, as the Minister has indicated. It is also a little surprising that the Minister says that even though it was outside the law, we could not possibly go to the Minister of Finance and ask for a one-off appropriation so that the fees that were collected illegally could either in part or in full be paid back to the members who paid that levy and fee.
So the proposal that the Minister has asked us to think about—I do not know that I am happy to do that actually, but what I would propose to the Minister is that he think about a better engagement with the sector. This is not a group of people whom we want to be disengaged from the legislative process. They should be supportive of it. They clearly are not supportive of the board, and I would not advise changing the board, because we have tried that a couple of times. That clearly did not work.
But I do think that the board could be more accountable and transparent. Actually, the select committee members made that point directly to it, and it took that on the chin. My reading of what it said back to us was that it would do that. It understood that part of the frustration that is felt in the sector is over the lack of accountability and transparency in regard to the board’s actions. So it collects money and the people whom it collects it from do not really feel confident about what it is using it for. Better transparency, I think, would improve the situation.
This matter should be better resolved going forward. The legislation is a bit of a blunt object, really. It is a bit of a sledgehammer approach. It does not offer any possibility of a fairer way of setting the levies and fees in the future, and that is another one of the concerns that the many plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers who have communicated with us have expressed. There have been other examples in other industries that they say would be a fairer way of collecting the money. I do think that the Minister could again over the weekend—I presume we are going to have this bill back before the House early next week—look a bit more broadly at other ways of collecting that money.
As the Minister alluded to, my colleague Raymond Huo has proposed an amendment. It is that a percentage of the moneys be repaid to the affected parties. It does allow for an opportunity for agreement to be reached between the various parties in this discussion and it then offers the opportunity that if agreement cannot be reached on the level for repayment—you know, it is somewhere between zero and 100 percent—then the Chief Ombudsman should make a determination.
That seems to me to be a pretty sensible way forward. It would recognise that the aggrieved parties who took the complaint in the first place have had some recognition of that, that they have not just had Parliament trample over their victory, if you like, which is what they saw it as. They saw that they had taken their complaint through a proper process and it had been agreed to, actually. Both the Regulations Review Committee and the Ombudsman said “Yes, you’re right.” and then recommended a way forward. So they feel as if, having achieved this victory in terms of having the illegality of the fee and levy recognised, they are now just being ignored. Well, that is not a good way to treat people who have gone through a proper parliamentary process, so the suggestion that has been made in Supplementary Order Paper 204 is that an alternative approach be made. The end outcome would be the same in terms of the safety of the industry, which, from what I heard from the Hon Maurice Williamson, is his primary concern.
That would be unanimously supported in this House. Nobody wants cowboys operating in such a critical sector, and there must be some method for the board to call cowboys to account. What Labour is saying is that this way is not the only way and, certainly, may not be the fairest way. The industry does not support it wholeheartedly. We have had, as I am sure all members of the House have, a lot of correspondence on this matter. Some—
Hon Maurice Williamson: From a handful of people.
Hon RUTH DYSON: No, actually, from a wide range of people, and my constituency colleagues will attest to the fact that their electorate offices have had a lot of visits as well. I am sure that in the Pakuranga electorate there would have been one or two plumbers who tried to get an appointment with the Minister, but perhaps he was pretty overloaded in his timetable; I am sure he is a busy electorate member of Parliament.
So this has been a rushed process, but I think we have had the goodwill of every committee member. For example, we decided not to call for additional submissions, but we considered the correspondence that we had received in the select committee on this matter. We treated that as submissions, so all members not only read it but discussed it rigorously as well.
The advisers on this legislation have been very hard-working and very attentive to the concerns that have been raised. They may have been a little frustrated that sometimes we wanted to try to get a better resolution. They had a clear mandate to progress this bill, but I think they gave us considered and rigorous advice, and all members of the select committee have put quite a lot of effort into it.
It is a pretty unhappy situation, though, when you have such an important issue being the cause of such controversy and lack of agreement within Parliament. Who knows? We may well decide that over the next few days, before the House next considers this, we will be able to get a fairer resolution and a resolution that the sector buys into. That would be my preferred outcome, and I certainly hope we can achieve that over the coming few days.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak in favour of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by the building and construction Minister, the Hon Maurice Williamson. This particular aspect of this legislation has been pursuing, certainly, my career in Parliament since 2005. This particular bill tidies up legislation around the funding of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. We have just heard from the Minister and from the Government Administration Committee chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and I would like to compliment her on the introduction of this bill and the fact that she sought additional time. It made it more comfortable business to deal with.
In fact, it is a straightforward amendment bill and it is an important one. Although it might not capture many headlines, that should not take away from the importance of the field or the intent of this particular bill, its field being plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, but more broadly the safety and structure of our homes. Let us remember, plumbers probably do more for longevity—or, certainly, as much for longevity—as do the health services that we enjoy under this Government. This bill is one part of the work that we are doing across the building sector to improve the presentation of services and the capability of the industry.
It was disappointing not to reach agreement at the select committee on the bill, but I would note positively that the select committee unanimously recommended a useful technical drafting amendment. There was certainly no great disruptive argument; there were just different points of view. I honestly find it hard to follow the logic of the Opposition approach, because basically this validates everything that was wanted at the time the initial Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act came into power. So—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Awful retrospective legislation.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, it did. This was what was wanted. If it had—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 April 2013. Good evening, everybody.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.