Thursday, 20 March 2014

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Next week the House begins a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 8 April the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper, including the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Wednesday of that first week back will be a members’ day—that is, 9 April. Effective on the morning of Thursday, 10 April, the Wednesday session will be extended. With the agreement of the Business Committee, the House will sit to progress Treaty legislation during that time.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the intention of the Government to push the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) through before the House rises on 31 July.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The Government will attempt to make great progress with all its legislation across all of the Order Paper. As well, I think, there could be the anticipation of a number of new bills that the Government will want to progress as we get closer to the 31 July date. But I would not advise the member to rush to that too quickly. There is still 4 months of hard work to do.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Education, Minister—Performance

1. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon David Parker: Does she stand by her statement on Tuesday with regard to kōhanga reo that “I am satisfied public money was spent in an appropriate way.”, when the ineffectual inquiry had not even considered the public money spent on wedding dresses, at petrol stations, and on other private bills; and if she stands by that statement, why on Wednesday did she refer the same matter to the Serious Fraud Office?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do stand by that statement, because I relied on Ernst and Young, whom we commissioned to carry out the independent review. One of the specific terms of reference that was made available on 16 October to the public made it clear that I wanted answers as to whether public moneys had been expended inappropriately. The answer Ernst and Young gave in its formal and publicly available report was no. Why did I refer it to the Serious Fraud Office on Wednesday morning? It was because on Tuesday evening when I met with the trust board it gave me assurances that it would deal with allegations that related to operations that only it knows about. When it became apparent yesterday morning that it had not and would not, I had no recourse but to refer it to the Serious Fraud Office, which does have the authority to investigate where I do not.

Hon David Parker: Does she stand by her statement at the same time that there was no waste of public money, because the public money was spent via Te Pātaka Ōhanga, a wholly owned subsidiary?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I never made any such statement. The statement I made was that in all the routine monitoring of the 460 kōhanga reo, both by the Ministry of Education and in the Ernst and Young report, we found that there was no misuse of funding. This is assisted particularly by the fact that kōhanga reo are paid in retrospect. Unlike every other early childhood centre that the Government funds, kōhanga reo are paid in retrospect for services already rendered.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister denying that at the press conference held late at night earlier this week, she told the media that they should not be worried about a waste of public money, because it was spent by a subsidiary, rather than by the organisation to which it was directly paid?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I did not tell them that they should not worry about wasting money. What I told them was that I had commissioned an investigation by an internationally reputable independent company called Ernst and Young, with terms of reference that have been publicly available since 16 October, to investigate whether any public moneys had been misused. The answer was no.

Hon David Parker: Which has been her most embarrassing blunder as the Minister of Education: larger class sizes as the centrepiece of Budget 2012, which was so bad that the Government flip-flopped within a week; the Novopay debacle, which 18 months on is still not fixed and has caused the Government tens of millions of dollars of wasted spending; or losing her chief executive officer Lesley Longstone months into her job, with a $425,000 taxpayer-funded golden handshake?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, not as big as the blunder of that member in not contesting the leadership of the Labour Party. However, I make no apology—well, I do apologise for causing staff duress over a system that was signed off by that Opposition party. But I make no apologies for trying to raise the achievement of every one of our New Zealand children—five out of five.

Hon David Parker: If those blunders were not bad enough, which of her two this week is the worst: her announcement on the weekend that she was going to introduce performance pay, followed by her denial, which led to the New Zealand Herald saying “her advisers are unhappy because she has been caught out … telling the truth.”, or was it in releasing the shoddy report in the dead of night to cover up the rorts in kōhanga reo and endorsing it as having a clean bill of health, only to refer the matter to the Serious Fraud Office the next day?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not consider transparency to be a fault. But I do consider it to be a fault that the Opposition relies on newspaper and third-party reporting. It is well known in the New Zealand education sector that it would be difficult to find anyone who agreed with the funding system, so much so that when members opposite were in Government a now former Minister of Education asked for a review of funding. In terms of the report from Ernst and Young that I released, I publicly said that as soon as I was able to meet with the trust, I would release it. The trust met me at 6.30 on Tuesday night. I released it at 8 o’clock—an hour and a half later.

Hon David Parker: Why does she not take any responsibility for the fact that the Ernst and Young report did not inquire into the issues that were at large?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the Minister of Education, I am responsible for public moneys. That is what I asked Ernst and Young to investigate. At the same time, I expected that the trust would investigate the allegations of its own operations. I have done my part; the trust has not done its part. As a result, I have referred it to the Serious Fraud Office.

Catherine Delahunty: Given the concern over the use of public money in early childhood, why does Kidicorp, a wealthy multinational childcare business, need $2.5 million of taxpayers’ money to expand its business when playcentres and kindergartens are struggling to survive?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This Government has a Better Public Services target of 98 percent of our new entrants in 2016 having participated in quality early learning education. As a result of that and because we respect that parents want to make choices about which early learning service they want to use, whichever childcare service meets the licensing criteria, which are publicly available, gets licensed and provides the services to the parents who choose to use it.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that Kidicorp is the most financially successful early childhood business in Aotearoa New Zealand, why is she giving them $2.5 million of taxpayers’ money?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are backing successful early childhood providers. There are clearly parents who are taking advantage of the 20-hour subsidy provided by this Government to choose to go to Kidicorp.

Energy Policy—Priorities

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he see New Zealand’s energy future in oil and gas exploration or renewable energy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is not an either/or. This Government takes a mixed and balanced approach to our energy future. I am motivated, of course, as the member well knows, by our economic opportunities that petroleum exploration presents, including the role gas plays in mitigating carbon emissions. I am also excited about our renewables future. All generation currently being built in New Zealand is renewable, as is the majority of consented generation.

Gareth Hughes: If that is the case, why is New Zealand ranked in the top 10 countries, according to the Fraser Institute, for policies that are favourable to oil and gas exploration, yet is ranked 39 out of 40, next to Saudi Arabia, for energy policies that support renewables?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not accept that analysis. I think if you look at the figures, when we came into Government in 2008, 65 percent of electricity generation came from renewables. Today, that is 75 percent. The last quarter of 2013 was a phenomenal—wait for it—84 percent from renewables. The last time it was that high was when there was a National Government in 1996. So the message is clear: if you want more renewables, vote National.

Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree with Eric Pyle, the Chief Executive of the Wind Energy Association, who says: “In New Zealand there are some subsidies and strong government support for the fossil-fuel sector. In contrast, there are almost no subsidies and limited government support for the renewable sector.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I share Eric Pyle’s enthusiasm for wind—not the kind, I might add, that the member produces. Can I say this: actually, we are as excited about our renewables as we are about the non-renewables sector. Let me give you a sense of our balanced and mixed approach here. Our Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority budget for the current financial year—taxpayers’ money—is $87 million. Our New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals budget is $18 million.

Gareth Hughes: Well, if that is the case, will he now consider shifting the $46 million in tax breaks identified to the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the $25 million in seismic survey subsidies to investing in clean energy, given that Petrobras is gone, Apache Corporation has left the East Coast, and now Anadarko has failed to find any oil?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Momentum is building in petroleum exploration. We saw new players enter in 2012 and 2013, and I think we can be confident that, through the block offer process, we will see that again this year. That is good because we want to explore all of our economic opportunities. But in relation to fossil fuel subsidy reform, the member might well be interested to know that we are seen at the G20 as a leader in this area. We are also, through the APEC voluntary peer review mechanism, the first economy to voluntarily undergo that process, and we will be doing so later this year. So we actually show leadership across the board in energy.

Gareth Hughes: Has the Minister received any advice regarding the International Energy Agency’s statement that we can afford to burn only 20 to 30 percent of already proven oil reserves if we want to save the climate, and why is he intent on drilling for more oil deep off our coasts, risking our beaches?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because, actually, a sober analysis of what is happening around the globe makes it very clear that the desire and need for energy is going up. We are seeing non-renewable use—particularly of coal—going up, and finding gas, which we know is present in the Great South Basin and Canterbury Basin, would be a very strong force for good. It would see energy and climate emissions reducing, not increasing. I think it can be part of the answer of a mixed-energy portfolio, not just for New Zealand but for Asia and the world.

Gareth Hughes: Has the Minister seen reports from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics that show that the greener the industry, the faster the job growth; if so, why will he not be pushing for more investment in these job-rich, clean-energy industries, which the sector itself says are starved of attention from the Minister and the Government?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is simply not true. We are spending $46 million on bio-energy, $7 million or thereabouts, I think, on the Stump to Pump project, and a further several million dollars through the University of Canterbury on various renewables projects. I am very excited about those things. As I said in a speech today, which I recommend to the member as it may allay some of his concerns, we have a strong renewables future and I do very much see that as the future.

Gareth Hughes: Has the Minister seen the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that says that New Zealand has a $22 billion annual economic opportunity in clean energy, and will he support taking advantage of that now that his oil-drilling agenda has plainly failed?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That report sounds very exciting. I think we should explore all of our opportunities. It is not a case of having to do one or the other; we can explore our coastlines for non-renewables and we can also invest and see the cleantech jobs that I know the member is so passionate about.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table literally thousands of submissions collected from New Zealanders asking the Government to invest in a clean energy future, not risky deep-sea oil drilling.

Mr SPEAKER: I am reluctant to put the leave. There is a process if a submission is received by which it is presented officially into this Parliament.

Economic Growth—Progress and Reports

3. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on progress in building a faster-growing economy that supports more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This morning Statistics New Zealand issued the GDP data for the December quarter of 2013. It showed that the economy continued to grow at above 3 percent annually, confirming that New Zealand is on the right track. The 0.9 percent growth in the December quarter took annual growth to 3.1 percent. So provided that we stick with the Government’s economic programme, and New Zealand households and businesses continue to rebalance their debt, reorganise their affairs, and continue to be more productive, we will have a faster-growing economy that can provide higher wages and new jobs for those who need them.

John Hayes: What were some of the main sources of growth in the latest GDP data?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economic growth in the year to the end of December was reasonably broad-based. Statistics New Zealand took particular pleasure in seeing that manufacturing, which was said to be in crisis, made the largest—not just the median or nearly largest, but the largest—contribution to GDP growth, “increasing by 2.1 percent, taking overall manufacturing activity to the highest level since March 2006.” So the manufacturing sector, which apparently is in crisis, is now at its highest level of economic contribution since March 2006. Interestingly, wholesale trade, including machinery and equipment investment, also grew significantly. In fact, investment in plant machinery and equipment generally associated with manufacturing was up 7.5 percent—the highest level ever since the GDP series began. We look forward to more Opposition-nominated crises of this sort.

Hon David Parker: Are non-primary manufactured exports still dropping and still below 2008 levels?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: So now the Labour Party story is—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the parts of—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: That was an extremely direct and specific question and the Minister of Finance starting it with an attack on the Opposition is not within the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister had hardly started his answer before the member was on his feet. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear the answer and I cannot hear the answer if the member is raising a point of order saying that the question has not been adequately addressed.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, my point of order was that the Minister began his answer—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have already said that I have not had enough chance to listen to the answer to consider whether that is appropriate. I call the Hon Bill English.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, just let me answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard, but I will expect it to be a new point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a new point of order and it relates to your last ruling, when you said you would wait to see whether the attack was appropriate. It could not have been appropriate from a straight question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not say that. I said I would wait to hear the answer. The answer has hardly started before a member is on his feet saying it is unsatisfactory. The question has been asked. It is now so long since it was asked, because of what I consider wasteful points of order, that I am going to ask the questioner to ask the question again, then we will hear the answer.

Hon David Parker: Are non-primary manufactured exports still declining and still below the level they were at in real terms in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm those numbers, but I can confirm that a fair bit of the growth of manufacturing comes from the further processing of primary production, which I thought the Labour Party supported. But now, apparently, it is the wrong sort of growth and it does not count. [Interruption] The fact that people get up on Monday morning and go to work to process our primary produce, apparently is not real jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I hear an interjection from Grant Robertson again, he will be leaving the Chamber.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under your rulings and under the rulings of the previous Speaker, when members on this side of the House ask a direct question with no politics associated at all, we are given a direct answer. That is not what the Minister of Finance did there and that is why I was interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: I am saying to the member that under no circumstances will I accept his interjecting at that level. If he wants to raise a point of order, he can stand and do so. But do not stand there barracking across the Chamber. I expect on this occasion that the question has—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is about Standing Order 383 and the “Content of replies”. This was a very specific question. It did not bring the National Party or the Labour Party or the Green Party into it. Standing Order 383 is very clear. It says that the reply “must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked,” and not include all of those other kinds of references. Clearly, the Minister of Finance keeps breaching this Standing Order. We are asking you to enforce it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a perfectly legitimate point of order. I think in hindsight that I let that answer go on far longer than it should have.

John Hayes: How does New Zealand’s latest quarterly GDP growth compare with growth rates in other developed economies, and what are forecasters saying about New Zealand’s growth outlook for the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s growth rate is better than that of quite a few developed countries, but, of course, the real measure of its success is whether it is providing more jobs for New Zealanders and higher incomes for New Zealanders. The good news is that forecasters are generally expecting that New Zealand’s growth rate will be maintained through 2014. This, however, is no cause for complacency or for a fiscal lolly scramble. This country has a lot of work to do yet to ensure that every New Zealander who can work can get a job, and that all those New Zealanders who have a job are paid in a manner that they regard as appropriate.

John Hayes: What other economic indicators are contributing to New Zealand’s stronger economic outlook and supporting more jobs and higher incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are quite a number of indicators, some of which we have discussed before, such as business and consumer confidence, but one important one is that in the year to March productivity increased by 2.1 percent above the annual rate of 1.6 percent. In the longer run there are increases in productivity, which will underpin higher incomes for New Zealanders. The Government will continue to work hard to help create the conditions that enable businesses to invest more and for New Zealanders to get more skills so we can continue to raise productivity, because there is so much more potential.

Hon David Parker: How has his Government’s corporate cronyism, handouts, subsidies, and paybacks to large multinationals and corporate donors to the National Party—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, may I repeat my question. It is in order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty is that we have just had a discussion around expecting answers to be concise. Equally, there is a Standing Order asking for questions to be concise. I am relatively liberal in interpreting that to allow a political exchange, but the reason there is disorder is the tone of the question that is being asked by the member. If he wants to continue with that, I am certainly not going to rule it out of order, but it is likely that it will engender a response from the Government side. The Hon David Parker—start the question again.

Hon David Parker: How has his Government’s corporate cronyism, handouts, subsidies—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a disreputable reference. It would be no different from my making an allegation that yesterday the Labour Party introduced, for example, a policy for cash to fund its campaign. Everyone knows that that is what is happening, but it is not appropriate to say it. It is not appropriate for him to put that in a question, and it most definitely is outside the content of questions requirement of Standing Order 383, as was cited by the Opposition a few moments ago.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty with the situation is that those words have now been used for some months and did not receive any objection from the Government at the time. [Interruption] Order! I am suggesting to the member that she is wrong. I have heard those words used on a number of occasions. I do not think they bring credit to this House at all, but because I have allowed them through in the past, I cannot see that we can change the course of action.

Hon David Parker: How has his Government’s corporate cronyism, handouts, subsidies, and paybacks to large multinationals and corporate donors to the National Party, including by, amongst others, Judith Collins, helped to provide better jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with the member. It is ironic coming the day after the Labour Party has announced the results of its interaction with the forestry industry, where the Labour Party policy hands out tens of millions of dollars of cash to a number of New Zealand’s biggest corporates, which, probably, through some confidential trust created by David Cunliffe, will be funding the Labour Party.

Hon David Parker: Why is the corporate cronyism he tries to justify a better option than providing tax incentives to the whole of a productive, value-added export sector like forest processing, which will create better jobs and higher wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has no activity that could be described as corporate cronyism. We have made a few pragmatic decisions about one or two significant pressures on the New Zealand economy, and I think most New Zealanders have regarded them as a fair go. What is clear, though, is that the Labour Party has a different view. Industry by industry, Labour members seem to be going around, designing policy for cash handouts to people who will almost certainly be incentivised to support them in the election.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to in any way dispute the ruling—well, not really the ruling, the comments—that you gave in the House earlier on the matters that we were discussing. You would have to go back to 1952 before there was a definitive Speaker’s ruling about the imputing of improper motives to the Government, which, effectively, is what the Hon David Parker did. I wonder whether you might consider that ruling and come back to us, to see just whether Speakers’ ruling 50/3 still stands, some 50 years later.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: I think you are going to take up the Leader of the House’s invitation, and when you do so, perhaps you might like to consider the answer that the Minister of Finance just gave, impugning the Labour Party and suggesting that we were somehow making policy for money that we are going to be donated. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more assistance. I will certainly have a close look at the matter, because I suspect it is going to be something that is raised on more than one occasion as we lead towards the election. But I will, in response to Grant Robertson’s point, particularly note that when a question is asked that does have imputations, etc., it is likely to give an opportunity—

Grant Robertson: We didn’t challenge it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that the member did not challenge it. The point I am making is that it does give significant licence to whoever is answering the question.

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board—Audit and Te Pātaka Ōhanga

4. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statements “I’m satisfied public money was spent in an appropriate way” and “There were no instances of TPO using public money inappropriately”; if so, why has she referred Te Pātaka Ōhanga to the Serious Fraud Office?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I stand by my statements based on the findings of the Ernst and Young report, where it said: “… we did not identify any instances of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust providing public funding to Te Pataka Ohanga”. Te Pātaka Ōhanga is not the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown; as owners of the private company, it is Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board’s responsibility. I have done my job; the trust has not done its job. That is why I have referred the matter to the Serious Fraud Office. The public wants answers, and so do I.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What portion of the approximately $92 million paid by the Government to Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust in the last financial year was paid by the trust to Te Pātaka Ōhanga for kaupapa funding, and was this transaction identified in the Ernst and Young report?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will quickly check whether that was identified in the report. I do not recall off the top of my head what proportion those services were. [Interruption] Page 20—well then, yes, obviously the answer is yes—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the Minister to answer.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was going to speak to the question, which asked about the proportion. I know the amount, which is just under $4 million, but I do not know what proportion that is of $92 million. So yes—actually, it is different. It is $3.7 million.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does she consider that kaupapa funding is derived from her ministry and is therefore public funding that goes to Te Pātaka Ōhanga?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am relying on the Ernst and Young report, which said: “… we did not identify any instances of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust providing public funding to Te Pataka Ohanga”.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why is it that the Prime Minister recognised in relation to Te Pātaka Ōhanga that “This is the spending of taxpayers money and the integrity of that is important to every New Zealander.”, yet she failed to recognise this when undertaking the review in October last year, which did not even address the allegations made?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Can I refer the member to the terms of reference that have been in the public domain since 16 October—terms of reference No. 6: “Establish what, if any, public funding provided to Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust may have been provided to Te Pataka Ohanga.” It clearly demonstrates that I was absolutely interested—

Grant Robertson: The Prime Minister is wrong then.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —in what was happening with public moneys, as has been the Prime Minister, and that is why we commissioned an internationally reputable firm, Ernst and Young, to undertake this investigation—

Grant Robertson: And make sure they didn’t look at it.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —and to make sure it did look at it, because it is in the terms of reference, which are in the public domain.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How many times has she sought assurances that allegations towards Te Pātaka Ōhanga have been addressed by the Te Kōhanga National Trust since 14 October last year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Either through the ministry itself, but certainly directly from me, many times, including as recently as Tuesday night, when we met to discuss the Ernst and Young report and where it gave me assurances it would deal with the allegation relevant to it. I have done my part; it did not do its part. As a result, I referred it to the Serious Fraud Office.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. I asked how many times had she sought assurances—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, but it is a satisfactory answer.

Stroke—Treatment Services

5. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received about recent progress in the treatment of stroke in New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Stroke is the leading cause of disability in New Zealand, and we know that fast treatment means a faster recovery. When it comes to stroke, time is brain. Research shows a dedicated stroke unit prevents many people from having a more severe stroke and significantly improves a patient’s recovery after a stroke. An audit in 2009 showed that only 39 percent of stroke patients were being treated in dedicated stroke units. Because of the Government’s focus on this, all district health boards now have a dedicated acute stroke unit or service, and I am advised that they are meeting the guidelines that 80 percent of stroke patients are treated in a dedicated stroke unit or service.

Louise Upston: What specific reports has he received about improvements in stroke treatment?

Hon TONY RYALL: A couple. Recently I visited the stroke unit at the Tauranga public hospital, and the professor in charge of the stroke unit there told me that their audit results would indicate that Tauranga’s stroke unit was achieving above-average results compared with the United Kingdom, which, interestingly, has spent £100 million on trying to improve stroke care, and many of our services are already exceeding what it does. The MidCentral District Health Board is leading work on telestroke, which means working with other district health boards to use telemedicine technology in order to link up with clinicians who can provide diagnostic support 24 hours a day to better support patient management decisions for those with stroke.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he agree that stroke disproportionately affects Māori people and contributes to a disparity in life expectancy equivalent to a silent epidemic that is killing 10 percent of the Māori population every year; and does he think that health services are giving this pretty shocking situation sufficient priority?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, I think the member made a very good point in the statistics he talked about. My response would be that our Government has put in a huge effort, particularly in the focus on the preventive areas that can help prevent people being at risk of stroke. The member will be well aware of the huge turning point that our Government has created in the fight against tobacco, and he will be very aware that one of the Government’s six national health targets is more heart and diabetes checks, which is more about people getting into a pathway of care in order to avoid the risk factors of stroke.

District Health Boards—Resourcing and Service Delivery

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, within context. I especially stand by the statement that despite tight times, this Government has increased health funding by an average of $500 million a year and that we have 1,300 more doctors, over 3,000 more nurses, and 1,000 fewer managers and administrators.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement regarding elective surgery that “These decisions are made by clinicians within the funding that they’ve got,”; if so, is funding sufficient in light of the comments by the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, who said this week that patients who needed surgery were being told they did not qualify; Arthritis New Zealand, which said current funding levels are not meeting need; and specialists who are frustrated because they are turning away patients in pain and disability, unable to treat them with the level of funding they receive?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. The Government is putting a huge effort into providing more elective surgery, because the history of it is that we inherited a situation where, when that member opposite was Minister of Health, the health budget increased dramatically but she cut the amount of elective surgery in New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: We have got a patient in the front row. Is it ethical for Auckland District Health Board—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: I am going to start again. Shall I, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member could start again, but just start the question straight away without an interjection. [Interruption] Order! If the member could just ask her question, I think it would assist me in establishing some order.

Hon Annette King: Is it ethical for Auckland District Health Board to make cuts to cardiothoracic surgery, vascular surgery, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, gynaecology, general surgery, respiratory medicine, and intensive care, because, to quote its chief executive officer, these are “services where we make a significant loss”, and patients are now figures on a profit and loss ledger?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is an unusual way to describe a service. I presume what the member was saying is that it is not meeting budget. The Auckland District Health Board has total revenue of $2 billion a year. The chief executive has expressed some concern that one part of the service is $12 million off budget. That is equivalent to about 2 days’ funding at the Auckland District Health Board. I support district health boards as they try to live within their budgets, because if they live within their budgets, they are able to make decisions for the people of their communities to improve services. I do not think I want our system heading along that road to financial ruin that I had when I became Minister of Health 6 years ago.

Hon Annette King: Does he have confidence in the chair he appointed to Auckland District Health Board, whose chief executive officer has sent out a panicky email to senior staff that has caused widespread alarm because it requires significant changes and “quick wins” to reduce the $12 million deficit, by taking staff out of theatres, and out of children’s and older persons’ health services?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. I have the utmost confidence in Dr Lester Levy. I have to say that hospitals trying to balance their budgets is nothing new. In fact, it even happened 30 years ago, when that member was running her first election campaign against Sir Robert Muldoon, Brian Talboys, and Lance Adams-Schneider.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, I could point out that that member has been in Parliament only 3 years less than me.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are going to call it one all, and we are going to move back to question time.

Hon Annette King: I’ve still got all my hair. [Interruption] And a good thing too!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now we will have the question. Otherwise we are moving on.

Hon Annette King: Does he think it is acceptable for district health boards to take, on average, 5 months to fill a senior medical officer vacancy—but it can take up to 8 months before they actually start work—in an effort to save money, and what is the impact on patients and staff, with such long delays?

Hon TONY RYALL: Filling some roles does take a long time. I only look at the Leader of the Opposition role for the Labour Party. It has taken a long time—

Hon Bill English: Chief of staff.

Hon TONY RYALL: And, in fact, the chief of staff took months. So some of these roles are quite difficult and challenging, and, certainly, I am sure with that member’s experience over the last 30 years, she has seen many of them come and go.

Hon Annette King: How does his promise of more operations stack up with the fact that Auckland District Health Board has managed to increase the number of orthopaedic operations carried out by only 28 since 2011-12, and now it wants to make cuts to orthopaedic surgery, according to the chief executive officer’s recent email, which I am happy to table because the Minister obviously has not read it, listening to all his answers?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am pleased that I always check anything that that member says in the House. Since we had the doctored Official Information Act response, I have always checked. The information I have is that, in fact, it has done over 1,200 more orthopaedic procedures compared with when Labour was last in office in 2007-08. I think it is doing a lot of very good work in Auckland under a lot of pressure. It is a fast-growing population, but that is the reason why this Government has put in $180 million extra into the Auckland District Health Board in the last 5 years.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: In that case—[Interruption] Order! If we could just briefly have what it is regarding, and then you need to seek leave, so I will put leave.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding repeated accusations by Tony Ryall that I have doctored figures.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make this personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon Annette King: In July 2013 I called a reporter at the Timaru Herald with figures that I had received through an Official Information Act response from South Canterbury District Health Board on the number of people waiting for a range of endoscopy procedures, including colonoscopies. I informed him that I believed that the number of people waiting for a colonoscopy should be 495 people, not 280 people as stated in the document. I explained the way that I had calculated the figure and handwrote what I believed to be the correct figure on the copy of the document provided by South Canterbury District Health Board. I then emailed it to the reporter for him to check. I phoned again once he had received the document, and he agreed with my assessment of the total provided based on the way the figures were presented.

He then contacted South Canterbury District Health Board and showed it what we believed to be the correct number of people waiting for a colonoscopy. At that point, South Canterbury District Health Board informed him that the figures provided for other endoscopy procedures had been added up as a total number. The number of people waiting for a colonoscopy was presented in a partly accumulated way. This was not made clear in the figures provided. The reporter advised me of the South Canterbury District Health Board’s explanation, which I accepted.

I subsequently phoned the chief executive of South Canterbury District Health Board and asked him to provide a new answer to my request for the number of people waiting for a colonoscopy. I received a letter with the changed figure on 11 July. The letter read: “The numbers for the second question on colonoscopy procedures in the table included in the letter was partly accumulated. This was not stated in the response and made the table difficult to add. We have amended the table so it is not accumulated.”

At no time did I distribute doctored figures, as claimed by Tony Ryall. The only people to receive a copy of my handwritten total were the reporter, who sent it to South Canterbury District Health Board, and Tony Ryall, to ask them to explain the apparent mistake. I seek leave to table the two documents I received and a note of explanation from the South Canterbury District Health Board on 11 July of the error it made when it provided me with the original figures.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents so described and a note of explanation. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table two documents from the Parliamentary Library showing that Sir Brian Talboys and Lance Adams-Schneider retired from the House 3 years before Mrs King contested an election, as evidence of the accuracy of the statements and the reliance that we can place—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more. On the basis that the member thinks that is important knowledge for the House, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that Parliamentary Library information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise of the rules in respect of once a personal explanation has been given and a member then repeats immediately the allegation afterwards, as the Minister of Health did, and what the process is? My understanding is that a member’s word has to be accepted. A personal explanation deals with the matter. To repeat the allegation as he did immediately afterwards breaches the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: A member’s word certainly must be accepted. Despite the detailed personal explanation, there could still be some matters of debate within that. The member’s word must be accepted but I do not think there is any matter I need to take any further at this stage.

Civil Justice System—Results of Reform

7. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Courts: What progress can he report on the Government’s efforts to reduce the age of civil court cases?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): Sometimes disputes need to be resolved and contracts need to be enforced, and that is why it is important that we have a robust and smoothly functioning civil court jurisdiction ready to support people in businesses when they need it. I recently reported to the House that the disputes tribunals have cut 15 percent, or 11 days, off their average case age last year. I can today also report that the average age of civil cases last year fell nationally by 16 days. This is a small but positive move towards helping businesses spend less time in court and more time creating jobs.

Mike Sabin: How have specialist courts like the Environment Court and the Employment Court contributed to faster, more efficient resolutions of civil court cases?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The Environment Court and Employment Court both face challenging cases but are equally committed to getting cases resolved faster. In 2013 the Employment Court cut 13 days off the average age of its cases and is on track to cut another 67 days off those cases over the course of this year. The Environment Court achieved a 13 percent drop in the age of cases in 2013 and is working towards another 50 days faster by the end of this year. The courts are doing this by focusing on older cases, a new commitment by the judiciary to getting reserved judgments out quicker, and the smarter management of their support and judicial resources.

Mike Sabin: Can he highlight for the House the works of individual courts that made a particular contribution to speeding up civil cases last year?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes, I can. In Palmerston North civil trials are moving 15 percent faster, with the average age down 34 days. In the Gisborne District Court civil cases are moving 49 percent faster, at an average age of 137 days, and disputes tribunal cases are down 36 percent. The Invercargill disputes tribunal is at the top of the table, cutting the age of its cases by 75 percent, down to less than 1 month. This is just another way this Government is working to make life easier for businesses all across New Zealand.

Justice, Minister—Visit to China

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that she “misled by omission” with respect to her dealings with Oravida Ltd and her ministerial visit to China; if so, in what specific ways did she mislead by omission?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Minister always agrees with the Prime Minister. She agreed with him when he said to the media that “She answered your question directly, but I think as a senior politician you have to acknowledge that even though you ask a specific question, there is a broader question you are asking and you have a responsibility to give broader answers.” The Minister did not respond as she should have, and that was an error.

Grant Robertson: Why, when asked the name of the Chinese border control official last Wednesday, did she answer “I don’t know what the name is.”, when she had been informed about the name and role of the official before she left New Zealand to go to China?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because she made a mistake. She has apologised for that and other matters. People make mistakes. It is the putting right that counts, as L V Martin said. I would note that that party has never apologised, for example—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That will not help the order of the House.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that she is now apologising for misleading the media by saying that she did not know what the name of the Chinese border official was when she said that last Wednesday?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister has apologised for the errors that she has made, particularly in not answering questions in that broad way as commended to her by the Prime Minister. She has apologised, she has apologised, she has apologised—she has apologised more comprehensively than John Cleese apologised to Otto in that film A Fish Called Wanda.

Grant Robertson: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to help the member.

Grant Robertson: Why did she describe her trip to Oravida in Shanghai as “popping in on the way to the airport”, when it was a pre-planned visit that was added to her official programme for her visit on 11 October?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: When she completed her report in accordance with paragraph 2.112 of the Cabinet Manual, she honestly reported to Cabinet on the achievements and the outcomes of her overseas travel. The member will appreciate that it is not usual for private dinners to be mentioned in the trip report unless, as in the case of Chris Carter, that was all that was achieved.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked was a reasonably direct one about why she described her trip in a particular way—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I listened carefully to the question. I listened carefully to the answer. I think on this occasion the answer addressed the question—I accept not to the member’s satisfaction. He may have further supplementary questions; he should use them.

Grant Robertson: I know that this is unusual, but I seek leave to table an answer to a written question that is not yet public, which shows that the visit to the offices of Oravida Ltd in Shanghai was first added to the Hon Judith Collins’ official programme on 11 October 2013.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not yet published, I will put that leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Grant Robertson: Why did her visit to Oravida’s office in Shanghai not appear in her report to Cabinet, given that according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade it was added to her official programme on 11 October?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think he listened to what I said about the Cabinet Manuel, about listing achievements and outcomes. The Minister saw—and she recognises this as an error—that this was nothing more than an incidental. And these things happen. I recall reading the report of the Attorney-General when he appeared before the International Court of Justice last year. The Attorney-General reported on his appearance, but he did not report that he had a cappuccino.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was getting up to suggest that that answer was not relevant, but I see that the Minister has now sat down.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but the answer certainly addressed the question. There might have been an unnecessary flick at the end; I accept that. [Interruption] Order!

Grant Robertson: How is it that on a taxpayer-funded visit to China on justice matters, her husband’s fellow directors of Oravida happened to be in Beijing on the day that she was there, and then happened to be in Shanghai a few days later when she was there?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I should have mentioned that the cappuccino was at Betty’s Café.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just address the question.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member’s unpleasant question suggests that this was all a trumped up visit to advance commercial interests. The Minister did go to China for justice meetings, as is apparent from her report. I do wish the member would concentrate on the big issues, like Labour’s poll ratings, rather than this sort of thing.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise what is a potentially serious matter with you, Mr Speaker, given your role as the person responsible for the precincts here, about what might be happening with the food at Copperfields, because Judith Collins was there at 1 o’clock and she has not made it to the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to make an attempt to become more familiar with the Standing Orders. The member should not draw attention to the absence of a Minister from this House.

Electricity Market—Smart Grid Forum and Price Monitoring

9. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What announcement has he made in relation to smart electricity in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): This morning at the National Energy Research Institute conference I announced the members of the newly established New Zealand Smart Grid Forum. The forum will provide a platform for dialogue between senior representatives from all parts of the electricity system, including business, scientific, academic, and consumer interests. The forum reflects the Government’s commitment to the responsible and savvy use of resources and technology to help secure our energy future. New technology like smart meters and smart appliances will help empower consumers by giving them more information on and control over their energy usage. I believe the Smart Grid Forum can play a significant role in the innovative and competitive electricity market being created in New Zealand.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What other electricity initiatives has the Minister announced to help empower consumers?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Today I also announced changes to improve electricity price monitoring and provide more accurate information for consumers about how the market is performing. The changes, to take effect from June, will see electricity price monitoring more accurately reflect what consumers actually pay for their electricity, as we know advertised prices tell only a part of the overall price story. Offerings such as prompt payment discounts and online discounts are now commonplace, and this should be captured by price monitoring. This work complements projects already under way by the Electricity Authority to ensure New Zealanders have access to transparent, reliable, and consistent information about their electricity prices.

Captioning—Free-to-air Programmes

10. MOJO MATHERS (Green) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he think that television programmes made with public funds should be screened with captions so that New Zealanders with hearing loss can watch them?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: Yes, where possible, taking into account the fiscally constrained environment that the Government has been operating in and the technical issues faced by particular broadcasters. I note that the Government supports captioning services on free-to-view TV through New Zealand On Air, with annual funding of $2.4 million for provisions of captioning services and audio description.

Mojo Mathers: Should one of the conditions of New Zealand On Air funding not be that these programmes are captioned, given that New Zealand On Air has funded more than $2 million worth of World War I documentaries that are being screened on Prime Television without any captions, making them inaccessible for New Zealanders with a hearing loss?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is an interesting point that the member makes, but I would note that the amount of captioned programmes has increased steadily over time. There is no doubt that the Government is not able to caption everything it would like to, but I think we are making very good progress, and there has been considerable improvement in this area over the last decade.

Mojo Mathers: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specifically about making the public funding to produce programmes conditional on those programmes being captioned, and that includes Prime Television. It does not mean that the Government has to fund it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member got a response that then addressed that question with the Minister saying that, due to fiscal constraints, it cannot be a condition on every programme.

Mojo Mathers: How long will he let New Zealand’s woefully inadequate rates of captioning continue while other countries such as the United States and Australia will have 100 percent captioning with free-to-air television because they regulate to ensure these high levels?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think the progress has actually been pretty good. We now caption 250 hours a week, compared with 70 hours a decade ago, so progress is being made all the time. I would also note that the choice of programmes captioned is made in consultation with the deaf and hearing-impaired community, so we are making definite progress in this area, but there is always more that can be done.

Mojo Mathers: Considering that next week is Hearing Week, what assurance will he give to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with hearing loss that public funds will not be used to pay for programmes that they cannot watch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I would note is that there are 35 hours of captioned television available on free-to-air television every day, which is more than one person can possibly humanly watch, so I think good progress is being made.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Should all programmes made with public funds also have Māori language subtitles, to recognise the status of Māori language as an official language of this country; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that is a very interesting point, but I do not believe that they should.

State and Social Housing—Ministry of Social Development’s Role

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about ensuring housing assistance goes to those most in need of it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Last week I, along with the Minister of Housing, announced the introduction of reviewable tenancies, the next step in ensuring housing assistance is going to those most in need. There are 68,000 State house tenancies, and it is vital that the right people are in the right homes for the right amount of time. Around 800 reviews will take place over 12 months, starting in July this year. They will target those already paying market rents, or close to market rents, to see whether they can move into and sustain a private rental. It is only fair that those who can move into a private rental do so, to free up a home for those more in need.

Melissa Lee: How will the reviews work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The review process is all about finding accommodation that bests suits people’s needs. As part of its role of assessing housing needs, the Ministry of Social Development will conduct these reviews. The reviews will look at whether a household can afford an alternative housing option but will also take into account whether alternative housing is accessible and sustainable.

Melissa Lee: What are the reviews likely to find?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: People’s housing needs change as their incomes and circumstances change. Some reviews will find that tenants still have a need and should stay in their current home. Some will find that their needs have changed and perhaps they need another State house. However, other reviews will find that a person no longer requires social housing, and a plan will be set up to help find them another home. No tenant will be asked to move if there is no suitable home for them to go to.

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board—Audit and Te Pātaka Ōhanga

12. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement in regards to Te Pātaka Ōhanga, “there were no instances of TPO using public money inappropriately”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I stand by my statements based on the findings of the Ernst and Young report, which said: “we did not identify any instances of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust providing public funding to Te Pātaka Ōhanga”. Te Pātaka Ōhanga is not the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown. As owners of the private company, that is the trust’s responsibility. I have done my job and it is a matter of deep frustration that the trust has not done its job. My office received an email on Monday evening outlining a range of concerns and allegations that were serious and specific. Once it became clear on Wednesday morning that the trust was not acting to restore public confidence despite being given every opportunity, I had no choice but to refer the matter to the Serious Fraud Office. The public wants answers from the trust, and so do I.

Tracey Martin: In light of that answer and her answer to primary question No. 4 earlier today, is it the Minister’s view that a $50,000 koha is an appropriate way for an organisation to spend public money, and is she aware of any other publicly funded organisations where this has happened?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Also, as the report makes clear in terms of that specific matter of the $50,000, it said: “During our testing we noted one koha payment of $50,000 made in December 2012 to a related party. The payment was a matter discussed in Committee by the Board, and related to the substantial contribution made by the recipient during the extended Waitangi claim process. The Board has the authority to make such a payment”—

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether it is the Minister’s view that a $50,000 koha is an appropriate—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question, and the Minister has, in detail, made reference to the $50,000 koha. The answer is addressing the question that was asked.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify, when the question asks “Is it the Minister’s view …”, and the Minister states the view of Ernst and Young, is the Minister’s view now the property of Ernst and Young?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is now directly questioning a ruling I have given as to whether the question was answered. What the member now needs to do is listen to the answer, allow the Minister to complete it, and then ask further incisive questions to get what she wants from the Minister.

Tracey Martin: Has she been advised by the board of the identity of the recipient of the $50,000 koha payment; if so, will she disclose their identity?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I have not, but I have advised the board that I think it should disclose it.

Tracey Martin: Does she agree that it could be perceived that her department and her ministerial responsibility has failed in the effective monitoring of the bulk funding of the $92 million of taxpayers’ money that has been allocated to Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust board, which she is responsible for; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No; because these allegations were brought to my attention on 15 October 2013. On 16 October I commissioned an independent review with very publicly available terms of reference of an internationally reputable, independent firm, Ernst and Young, to carry out this review. As soon as I had the report available and was able to meet with the board, within an hour and a half I made it publicly available.

Tracey Martin: Would the Minister agree that her department’s failure of oversight over this public money has now put the taonga of kōhanga reo at risk; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No; because the Ministry of Education monitors the kōhanga reo, and it reported in October that there was no indication of impropriety of public funding. That has been confirmed here. But what I do think has happened, and is putting at risk this taonga, is the trust board’s failure to step up and act responsibly in making public these allegations and how it deals with them.

Points of Order

Clerk of the House of Representatives—Queen’s Service Medal

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we do not refer to the absence of members, but I do want to refer today to the absence of a staff member. It is Mary Harris, the Clerk of the House. She is not with us today because she is receiving her honour at Government House—her Queen’s Service Medal for services to Parliament. I think that it is appropriate to put on the record of Parliament our appreciation of Mary’s terrific contribution to Parliament over many years and to congratulate her heartily on this honour.

Mr SPEAKER: Noted by acclamation.

Urgent Debates Declined

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board—Audit and Te Pātaka Ōhanga

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the referral by the Minister of Education to the Serious Fraud Office of allegations of inappropriate spending of public money by Te Pātaka Ōhanga. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable for its decisions.

As I stated yesterday, public confidence in the use of public funding is important. However, not every ministerial announcement will give grounds for an urgent debate. As Speaker’s ruling 191/5 makes clear: “The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debates is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside.” This is a case where the use of public funds has been referred for further investigation. The matter is obviously still under way. When any decision on the investigation is reported, members will have the opportunity to raise its conclusions if this is warranted.

Furthermore, at least two questions today have been addressed to the Minister about this matter. This has given further opportunity for discussion. In these circumstances I do not believe there is any justification that would require the setting aside of the usual business of the House to debate the matter today. The application for an urgent debate is therefore declined.

Bills

Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is part of this Government’s blue-green agenda to improve New Zealand’s marine management while we also strengthen our economy. It creates a new marine reserve, a new whale sanctuary, a new seal sanctuary, five new customary fishing areas, and it tightens recreational catch limits in the Kaikōura area. Its provisions will not only benefit—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member trying to address the business of the House. It is good conduct and being considerate of others. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Its provisions will not only benefit Kaikōura’s whales, its dolphins, its seals, its albatrosses, its rock lobsters, its shellfish, and its finfish but also safeguard and sustain that region’s $134 million-a-year tourism industry.

The rugged Kaikōura Peninsula and its snow-capped mountains stand out as a jewel within New Zealand’s coastal environment. The deep canyon of Kaikōura makes its waters the most biologically productive in the world, at depths of over 500 metres, and supporting a stunning diversity of marine wildlife. I am advised by scientific experts in marine conservation that the level of marine life at those depths is a hundred times greater than the next most prolific area, emphasising just how special that Kaikōura marine habitat is. Marine mammals like our sperm whales, humpback whales, blue whales, southern white whales, the orca, the dusky dolphin, and Hector’s dolphins already knew this long before our scientists surveyed this area, as can be seen by how often they hung out in these rich waters.

Its waters also support our largest New Zealand fur seal breeding colony. Since 1988, when the first whale-watching boat was launched, Kaikōura has gained a global reputation for this unparalleled marine biodiversity. The region has witnessed a rapid and successful expansion of that marine tourism, including dolphin swimming, seal encounters, and snorkelling, as well as fishing. But until now Kaikōura’s marine treasures have not been subject to any formal protection. Recreational fishing, charter fishing, and legal fishing practices have meanwhile been placing unsustainable pressures on local fish stocks, especially in respect of the cherished local crayfish.

The ambition to better protect Kaikōura’s marine environment goes back at least two decades. When I first engaged in this issue in the 1990s, the divisions in the community were as deep as the ocean canyons adjacent to the Kaikōura coast. It has been so encouraging over the past few years to return to Kaikōura to meet with local conservationists, fishers, and iwi, to see them working together, and to see the package of marine protection measures that have now been agreed by consensus.

I particularly want to acknowledge Colin King, the MP for Kaikōura, who early in his career, and even before he was elected, persuaded me to don a wetsuit, flippers, and a snorkel in the middle of winter to help make the case for marine protection. His advocacy for these marine protection measures has been consistent. I also want to acknowledge my other colleagues who have played a significant role, particularly the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, and his ministry; Amy Adams, the Minister for the Environment, whose ministry has also helped fund the Te Korowai process; and those officials who have diligently worked since these proposals were presented in 2012. The Kaikōura marine strategy is ultimately the beginning of this bill and is the positive outcome of all of this work.

There are six key elements of that strategy that are implemented with this bill. The first is a new marine reserve, the Hikurangi Marine Reserve, covering 10,400 hectares over the deep Kaikōura canyon. The proposed marine reserves include that area that is the critical habitat for the resident sperm whales. That area is an absolute no-take zone in respect of no fishing, no mining, no marine farming, and no exploration.

The second major initiative is a whale sanctuary covering 4,500 square kilometres and extending out beyond the territorial sea into the exclusive economic zone. The sanctuary will protect whales by placing restrictions on seismic survey activities in that area. It prohibits those high-level seismic survey works associated with petroleum exploration, but it quite deliberately allows those lower-level seismic works—for instance, to be able to investigate the sorts of risk from tsunamis that have been highlighted in technical reports released today.

A third measure is a New Zealand fur seal sanctuary at Ōhau Point. This is the most significant breeding colony on the New Zealand mainland islands for this endemic species of New Zealand. Access to Ōhau Point will be restricted, but people will still be able to observe those seals from the existing viewing areas and from the water.

The fourth element of this bill is the customary fishing areas, which include two new taiāpure local fisheries and three mātaitai reserves. This vital cultural element will restore and maintain traditional food-gathering areas of special significance to Ngāti Kurī of Ngāi Tahu. It will enable Ngāti Kurī to utilise traditional knowledge and customs to protect those fishing areas.

A fifth and important part of the changes in this bill is the tightening of recreational amateur fishing regulations. These will result in reductions in bag limits for the number of finfish and shellfish species. For example, there will be a daily limit on some seaweeds and a reduction in bag limits for tarakihi, kahawai, butterfish, and blue moki, as well as prohibiting the take of red moki and requiring tail clipping for recreationally caught crayfish. This will discourage illegal black market sales, as the ability to store quantities of recreationally caught crayfish will be limited.

The final part of this package is a new ministerial advisory committee to provide an ongoing role in respect of the conservation and fishery issues in Kaikōura.

I want to square off three criticisms by Opposition members of the Prime Minister’s announcement of this bill. The first is from Labour MP Ruth Dyson, who said that the only progress this Government is making is on low-hanging fruit. I remind that member that the proposal for the Akaroa marine reserve sat on the desk of Labour conservation Ministers for 9 years without moving, and for her to now suggest that this Government progresses only the easy issues in conservation is simply untrue.

I also remind Labour and its support partner the Greens that 34 petroleum wells were drilled in the ocean during their term in Government, without any consents being required or any environmental assessment. It is only under this Government, with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority and the exclusive economic zone legislation, that we now have a robust system for managing the risks of petroleum and minerals exploration in our vast oceans. I simply ask members opposite where they were for the 9 years when that work took place.

I also believe that it is rather churlish of members opposite to be critical of the size of this new Kaikōura reserve. It will be the largest marine reserve on any of New Zealand’s main islands. It is actually larger than all of the nine reserves that were created in Fiordland added together. Inevitably, it has involved compromises, but it covers the unique deep canyon off the Kaikōura coast that is most deserving of this high level of protection.

I also want to put this bill in the broader context of this Government’s work in the area of marine conservation. It is our view that the ocean environment, which is 20 times our land area, is the new frontier for conservation. That is why this year our Government will pass and put in place a record number of marine reserves, and why we are also progressing very substantive work on a new piece of legislation for marine protected areas, to enable us to be able to progress these sorts of reserves without the need for special legislation.

I would also note the work that this Government is doing in terms of the Ross Sea, which is known as the last ocean in the world. We are making progress in the international negotiations around the protection of that area too.

I am one of those who are proud of not just this Government but this country’s record in respect of marine conservation. I note that the international Marine Policy journal looked at 68 major countries with marine resources and said that New Zealand’s record was the very best in terms of conservation management of our oceans. This is a good bill, a huge amount of work has gone into it, and I commend it to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say that it is a real pleasure to be speaking in support of this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. I want to open by congratulating the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nick Smith, on the content of this legislation, and say that I look forward to it progressing at good pace through the Local Government and Environment Committee back into this House and being passed. I think it is a very good initiative. I also want to acknowledge the outgoing member of Parliament for Kaikōura, Colin King, who is well known for his advocacy here and was certainly acknowledged by the Minister. I do not know what it is about a Thursday afternoon, but we seem to do this on quite a regular basis. Sometimes, I feel a little tricked that I end up leaving the House congratulating the Minister of Conservation. I have just done it again—but he deserves it. Actually, he also deserves congratulations on the Akaroa marine reserve, because it did languish—not for 9 years of a Labour Government as he said but actually for 9 years of a previous National Government before that. I recall that the late Rod Donald; Mr Speaker, David Carter; and I, as the three members of Parliament in that area, signed joint representation, signing a joint letter of advocacy, to the then National Minister. I am just trying to recall who that would have been. It might have been the Hon Nick Smith, actually. We were advocating in the early 1990s for a marine reserve in the Akaroa Harbour, the Dan Rogers Marine Reserve. So let us not be petty about this, because the Hon Nick Smith did sign it off just as he has progressed this legislation and signed it off.

I also want to acknowledge a far bigger group of people—the local iwi, those in the local marine industry, the tourism operators, and the environmental groups, who have worked for 7 or 8 years to get this management plan progressed. I totally agree with the other point the Minister made, and that is that we would all be better off if we did not have long, protracted litigation about marine protection, but, rather, went down a path where we can get agreement by all the different groups in the first place. A similar effort was proposed a decade or so ago. It did not really get progressed. I hope that the next attempt achieves that. It seems to me that for the fishing industry that would be a good thing. It would be very clear where there are no-take areas. They do not have to argue about it. They would just know about it. For those of us who care passionately about having better marine protection, we would not have to spend hours and lots of dollars on going through contentious and divisive court action in order to progress it. Local people would be able to have their say on what is important in protection in their community. I think that is a very worthy aspiration, and I would certainly commit to Labour working alongside the Government—until 21 September, when we will not have to. But I would invite the Hon Nick Smith to give us the same reciprocity, from his position in Opposition on 21 September, so that we would be able to work together so that our communities will be less divided over marine protection and have the opportunity to come together.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, it is a real pleasure to be able to support this legislation. It is a good move. I still maintain that it is low-hanging fruit because there are a number of quite substantive areas in which the Minister of Conservation has failed. I want to just draw those briefly to the attention of the House in my concluding comments. The Minister acknowledged the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy. He has actually been an obstacle in some of the most urgently needed protection, and that is better protection for the Maui’s dolphin and the Hector’s dolphin. Just this week, at the Local Government and Environment Committee, a very substantial petition signed by thousands and thousands and thousands of New Zealanders was presented and spoken to by Christine Rose from Auckland and Associate Professor Liz Slooten from Otago University. They talked about how easy proper protection measures would be to be put in place, and how the protection measures that the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Nathan Guy have recently introduced just do not cut the mustard. They do not go far enough.

We might ask why that should be of concern to the House. Well, actually, it must be of concern to the House because we have the responsibility of protection of the Māui’s dolphin. There are only 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left. They all live in New Zealand waters. It is our responsibility to take the most precautionary approach possible to ensure the survival of that species. What bigger responsibility can there be, in terms of marine mammals, than to have the fate of a species in your hands? That is the position we are in. Bullied by the fishing industry and the Minister for Primary Industries, the Minister of Conservation buckled and did not hold the line on the precautionary approach and the best possible protection. I think that that strategy needs to be relooked at. I would be delighted to ask the Minister a patsy question about how great the Māui’s dolphin protections were, if he introduced such protections, but he has not. I think he lets not just the side down but New Zealand down.

Our fishing industry is now under threat because of, internationally, the increasing number of consumers who look at the product they are about to purchase and say: “Where was this made? How was it produced? Is it sustainable? Is the industry that produced it sustainable?”. We have more and more of our consumers overseas—the wealthier end of the market, buying high-value products—looking at our fish and saying: “Well, when this fish was caught they may well have killed a Māui’s dolphin. They may well have killed a dolphin that is critically endangered.”, and those people are saying: “We’re not going to buy that fish.” We have the opportunity to support our fishing industry to move to sustainable practices and, at the same time, save our Māui’s dolphins, save the species. How could anybody lose from that proposal? Why did the Minister of Conservation not take it up? Why did he get bullied by the Minister for Primary Industries and buckle, when the literal future of a species is at stake? So I think that is something that we need to be concerned about, need to work harder on, and, as I said, I will be delighted to congratulate the Minister of Conservation when he does the right thing.

The other area where the Minister of Conservation has significantly let the side down is when, through some exchange of concern, information, or advice between the Minister, his office, and the Department of Conservation, the substantive submission prepared by the Department of Conservation raising concerns about the one-nutrient model, which is proposed in the Tukituki plan change to progress the Ruataniwha Dam, just vanished. Instead of a well-researched, properly scientifically based submission raising genuine concerns with the board of inquiry about this one-nutrient model—it is a model that says the level of nitrates in the Tukituki River will not be of concern and it will worry only about the phosphorous level; it is brand new, it is unique, it runs the risk of turning the Tukituki River toxic—the Minister of Conservation, through that exchange with his department, had the submission withdrawn. Those concerns had to raised by NGOs, by Fish and Game, by Forest and Bird, and by other local community groups that are concerned about this brand new model being tested in the Hawke’s Bay and running the risk of turning the Tukituki River toxic. I think that is a very big black mark on the register of issues against the Minister of Conservation. I do not think that that submission should have been withdrawn. It was an important one to make. It is at the heart of the advocacy role of the Department of Conservation, which has been not just watered down but actually drowned and thrown out—the baby with the bathwater—by this Government. The current Minister is certainly a step up from his predecessor in terms of being passionate and caring about conservation issues, but that was the worst example of where the department was needed and had the responsibility for putting that submission to the board of inquiry, and that substantive submission just went in the bucket.

In conclusion, I want to again congratulate the Minister on bringing this legislation forward. It is a good bill, and it is one that we will be supporting, hopefully, through all stages—unless something goes off the rails in the meantime, and I cannot imagine it would. I want to again acknowledge the local people who have worked so hard on preparing Te Korowai, which was the strategy document that led to this. For many, many years, they worked constructively, hard, with passion, and with genuine understanding of the local area, and it is a great pleasure to be able to support this legislation on that basis.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I too am very pleased to be able to support this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. I am really pleased because it is an exciting day for the people of Kaikōura, many of whom have been involved in the Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura project for over 7 years, working on coming up with an innovative and different way to protect their marine environment. It is a collaborative process, and it has worked very well. It has had locals from all around the community, representing all the different stakeholders, working to get this protection for the Kaikōura that they love correct.

If you think about marine protection, Kiwis are very keen on marine reserves. They are particularly keen on marine reserves that are not where they go fishing. As you know, fishing is one of our most popular pastimes in New Zealand, and fishers tend to be very passionate about their secret fishing spots and they visit them regularly. They are also passionate about marine reserves, but not where they go fishing. New Zealand was the first country in the world to introduce the idea of no-take reserves, but it is the location—the fact that it is your favourite fishing spot—that has caused huge debate when people suggest new marine reserves. There has often been huge and quite bitter debate that has divided communities.

It was not until the Guardians of Fiordland Fisheries and Marine Environment got together and developed a stakeholder model that it could work with the community around the areas: the people who go fishing there, the people who have tourist operations, the people who are conservationists—the people who are really involved in their area. It got them together and came up with a mutually agreed process and some marine protection that everybody could sign off. I think that is the answer for marine reserves. The huge subantarctic marine reserves that the Minister of Conservation visited last month were very successfully negotiated through a collaborative stakeholder forum. I think that is what it is all about. We do want to protect our marine reserves. Some of us have vested interests in certain spots, but if we can get together and have a bit of give and take, we can come up with something that really works.

Now we have Te Korowai. This is an example of a very successful collaborative community process, and it has really delivered an intelligent, well-supported, and comprehensive marine package for that area. It is innovative, it is different, and it has different levels of protection right across that Kaikōura coast. First of all, it provides for the Hikurangi Marine Reserve, and that covers 10,416 hectares—so it is a very large area. It protects all the species in the area, including whales and fur seals, but it also protects that very unique, hugely deep, submarine canyon that goes along the Kaikōura coast for about 23 kilometres. It also protects the other natural marine habitats in the area. The bill also creates a whale sanctuary. That is to protect the whales themselves and also the habitat of the whales. The sanctuary stretches all the way from Gore Bay to the Clarence River—that is over 91 kilometres of land mass—and then it stretches out way past our territorial waters into our exclusive economic zone, about 56 kilometres off the coast. Again, it is a very large area that will be protected for the whales and the whale habitat.

It also creates a sanctuary for New Zealand fur seals. This will be at Ōhau Point, which is an area where they naturally congregate already and where the colony can be observed by the public. It is a particularly popular area for tourists so far, because it has a unique feature: it has a seal pup creche. The seal pup creche is in a stream with a waterfall that goes up into the bush behind, up from the beach. The mothers pop their seal pups there when they go out fishing and they leave them there. It has become a tourist attraction, where you can walk up through the bush, along the stream, to this waterfall, and you can see dozens of baby seals playing in the water while their mothers go out to get their dinner for them. It is area that has been naturally popular with tourists, people enjoy it, and now that will be protected as well.

There will also be some customary fishing protection through two taiāpure and mātaitai, and, finally, there have been significant changes to fishing regulations. Again, this is an interesting story. Locals have got together and they have looked at it. They have reduced the bag catches of some species, they have actually made some prohibitions on other species, and they have reduced the legal take sizes. I was very interested to hear this weekend when I was at Kaikōura fishermen talking about “Oh, well, we really can’t take our whole bag, because those Korowai people won’t like it.” So they are actually already reducing their take for the future so they can protect their marine environment.

I would very much like to congratulate the people of Kaikōura. It has been a long haul—7 years—and a great collaborative process. Everybody has been involved. It is leading to an excellent bill that we will be very pleased to put through the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure to take a call on the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill and offer Labour’s strong support for the bill. And, as my colleague Ruth Dyson has spelt out, we want to congratulate the Minister of Conservation and the Government on bringing this bill to the House.

I am excited about the description of what will come out of this bill. It is exciting for any New Zealander, and I cannot imagine there will be a single person in this House who does not feel thrilled about the development of these marine sanctuaries and the reserve, because we all feel very strongly about this. We all have close connections to the sea. We are a seagoing nation. We are a nation that likes to fish. Many of us come from traditions that have strong connections to the coast. Actually, I am a Pisces, so that gives me special connections to fish and the sea, and I always feel very excited whenever I get close to the sea and smell the sea air.

Mike Sabin: Have you got gills?

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Don’t be rude.

DARIEN FENTON: It is all right; I can take it. Anyway, the bill establishes management measures for the coast and sea around Kaikōura. It includes a marine reserve, a whale sanctuary, a New Zealand fur seal sanctuary—where access will be prohibited except by permit—five customary fisheries areas, an advisory committee, and fishing regulations that are specific to the area. I think the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, gave a very good description of what this area looks like. For a North Islander, for someone who comes from the city of Auckland, it was very helpful to be able to envisage what this is going to look like. I am sure that others who are closer to the area, like my colleague Maryan Street, will be able to describe what it means to the people whom she knows and lives and works among in her area.

One of the things that is very important and that was acknowledged by the Minister is marine tourism in Kaikōura. It is a significant economic earner for New Zealand that is increasing annually. Revenue from whale and dolphin tourism increased from $72 million nationally in 2004 to $80 million in 2008. International visitors have voted whale and dolphin tourism 45th out of the 131 activities and attractions surveyed. Kaikōura is the main centre in which these activities take place.

One of the things we have to be really careful about when creating beautiful marine reserves, adventure activities, and wonderful places for tourists to come to is making sure we get all of the processes right—all of the rules around this bill, and also all of the rules that apply to the tourism experiences that we offer to overseas visitors. And on that note I have to tell the House that there is a big botch-up going on at the moment with adventure activity tourism. It has been in the news a little bit in the last few days. It came about because the Prime Minister promised the country, tourism operators, and the population of New Zealand that he would do something to make sure that adventure activities are safe. He promised there would be new regulations, and the then Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, got stuck in to it and brought about some regulations that finally came in at the end of 2011.

The next Minister of Labour, after the previous one had been sacked, then announced there were going to be three providers that would provide the audit that was going to be required to ensure that these adventure activities are safe, as, indeed, the Prime Minister had assured the country and had assured tourists they would be. So the regulations were developed and they require a provider to audit the activities. Those audits have to be done by 1 November this year. It will be illegal, it will be unlawful, for any adventure activity provider to operate without that audit specifying that it is safe under the health and safety regulations that have been created.

What the Minister has failed in and the Prime Minister has failed to oversee is ensuring there are actually the resources to provide the audits that are going to have to be carried out—something like 600, and many, I am sure, are in this area of Kaikōura—and support the companies, the providers, that are carrying out these audits. Initially, the Minister announced there were three providers. What he did not tell us, of course, was that they were all NGOs, so they were not in it for making private profit. They were NGOs carrying out their business. Two dropped off very quickly, and the last one that was left, Outdoors New Zealand—which is also a not-for-profit charitable trust, not a commercial organisation—has said in the last week that it can no longer carry on. It said it had done its best to implement the outdoor safety regulations of 2011 to make sure that our outdoor adventure tourism is safe throughout the country. However, it expected that the Minister and the Government would provide some support—that it was not going to just be able to be established and audit 600 providers without some support from the Government—but that support was not forthcoming.

Outdoors New Zealand has now suspended audits, saying that it has a cash flow problem and it cannot continue. What that means is there are 600-odd organisations that are in limbo and do not know whether they will be able to operate after 1 November 2014. So that means those organisations, including those in Kaikōura, will not be able to take forward bookings until this mess is sorted out.

It is also a very bad message for our international tourism market, because this health and safety audit came about because of a couple of awful accidents in adventure tourism. That is why the Prime Minister made the promises that he has been unable to keep. One of the reasons he said we needed to do that was not only for the safety and health of people but also for our reputation. Tourists want exciting adventure activities, but they want to know they are safe and that we have in place the most stringent regulations to ensure that is the case—that every provider has been checked, has been audited, and has plans in place so that we can give assurances to people, not just overseas tourists but also domestic tourists, that these activities are safe. So there is a huge problem right now.

Although it is great to celebrate this bill, I really hope that by the time it comes back to the House the Prime Minister has come home from China and sorted this mess out, because we—and I mean we as a country—have a terrible problem to deal with right now that will affect all of the hard work that has been done by Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura. It will affect the reputation of organisations in Kaikōura. It will affect every other adventure tourism operator throughout the country. It will affect our brand, which is so important to all of us. All of the hard work that is going into this could be lost because of the carelessness of the Prime Minister in making promises he could not keep and the carelessness of his Ministers, like the Minister of Labour, who has not paid attention to this issue and who has not supported the organisations that have to provide these audits.

Right now there are angry operators up and down the country. They are furious with the Government about this, because on this rests so much, not just the lives and the health and safety of people but our reputation as a nation—our international reputation. So all of the work that has gone into this fantastic marine reserve —wonderful work, wonderful collaboration—and all of the things that preserve so much of our national identity, the things that we are proud of, and the things that we value as a nation, are currently on the line because the Prime Minister has not done his job. He is busy over in China doing something else at the moment when he should be here fixing this up really quickly. The Minister of Labour has not done his job either—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What a silly thing to say. That’s just silly.

DARIEN FENTON: That member Jonathan Coleman—he is silly. He might think it is silly—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yes, it is silly.

DARIEN FENTON: So that member thinks 600 adventure tourism providers with their businesses on the line—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, saying that the Prime Minister shouldn’t be in China is bonkers.

DARIEN FENTON: Oh, yes! So, anyway, to finish—look, we are delighted to support this bill. Jonathan Coleman probably needs to study the issue a little bit more before he starts shouting out things about being silly, but we are delighted to support this bill. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. The Green Party supports greater marine protection. We think that this is an absolutely stunning and beautiful part of the country. Seeing those seals, the other marine life, and that trench, which is one of only 100 such deep marine sites in the world—this is a beautiful part of our beautiful country. It is somewhere that many New Zealanders love, where they go camping, they go surfing, and they go there to check out the marine life. I think every New Zealander has got their own story about their favourite part of New Zealand, but I would not be surprised if this coast, the Kaikōura coast, was at the top of many Kiwis’ list.

It is also a good example of the clean, green economy. We call it the smart green economy, which is built on enhancing and taking advantage of our natural beauty, protecting it so we have got a sustainable income into the future—not this drill it, mine it, and frack it approach to our natural environment that we see from the Government so often. What you can see in the officials’ advice to the Government is that marine tourism is a huge earner for this country, bringing in more than $1.6 billion. More than 500 million international tourists took part in some sort of marine conservation or marine tourism activity, so it is a fantastic, smart green economic sector. With the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, this is a real area where we could see new jobs, new prosperity, and a richer New Zealand as a result.

So we are supporting marine protection. That is why we are supporting this legislation today. We would like to acknowledge the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith. We would like to acknowledge and thank for the hard work all the people involved over so many years in the Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura process—the local iwi, Ngāti Kurī, obviously Ngāi Tahu, and everyone involved. The Government is sort of—you know, of course, this is election year—trying to pretend like this is something it has come up with and it is acting on. But I really do want to say that over many, many years people have been—

Maggie Barry: No, it took 7 years to organise it. We’ve got substance, unlike that member.

GARETH HUGHES: Well, if Maggie Barry is going to sit there and slag off from the backbenches about this, she, in fact, is backing up my point, which is that this bill has been something developed from the community for many, many years—longer than this Government, in fact. So it is unfair for this Government and the member Maggie Barry—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members in close proximity to each other—and I go back to Sir Basil Arthur in 1984 for this Speaker’s ruling. When you have close proximity, it muffles the microphone. It makes it so much more difficult for the person trying to address the House. Can I just remind the House that courtesy is contagious.

GARETH HUGHES: And it is quite unbecoming as well. So I am making the point that people have been working very hard over a number of years and we would like to thank them and acknowledge them. I think that with such collaborative processes, we could see more successes like these in the future.

We know the bill does a number of things, including establishing a new marine reserve, the Hikurangi Marine Reserve; a new whale sanctuary; a new fur seal sanctuary; the mātaitai; the taiāpure; and some regulations when it comes to fishing. So it looks like a big package, but what I want to do is go into each element of this bill, provide a bit of context, a bit of analysis, and then look at the motivations behind it. But, more important, I want to look at the Government’s track record when it comes to marine conservation, because there very much is an agenda behind this legislation we see today.

First off, I want to look at the marine reserve because this is what the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, has been trumpeting. He says it is the largest marine reserve to touch mainland New Zealand. Although that is the case in a strict measurable sense, in terms of being just slightly larger than 10,000 hectares at 104 square kilometres, it is important to point out—people watching this on the television or listening on the radio obviously cannot see the maps that are provided in the legislation. What this marine reserve does is have a tiny little bit on land, 1.95 kilometres—a tiny bit on land—and then extends out into the waters over the trench. We are not opposed to protecting trenches, but we just think if you are going to be talking about making the largest marine reserve that touches land, you would not have this almost triangle shape with the smallest point touching land. We think there is a bit of misadvertising there. What we would like to see are greater marine reserves over our beaches, over our rocky shores, so that people can enjoy the biodiversity and the protection benefits that marine reserves provide.

We would note that there is very limited fishing in this area. We would note, again, the size: 104 square kilometres. The Government is making out that this is a huge deal, but it is 104 square kilometres. Last year the Government offered oil blocks to the oil industry that were 4,000 times larger. So let us put them in contrast: 104 square kilometres of new protections, yet 4,000 times more oil blocks were offered in a single year. Here you can see the Government’s priority. The Government is again making out like this is a huge marine reserve, and we do need some big marine reserves. Less than 0.5 percent—0.41 percent—of our exclusive economic zone and territorial sea is protected in marine reserves. We know that Colmar Brunton surveyed New Zealanders and found they assumed that we had around 30 percent protected—no, the truth is 0.41 percent. So what does this new reserve take the total to? From 0.41 percent to 0.41 percent. The size is that small in the global picture that it moves only a couple of decimal points.

When it comes to the whale sanctuary, we would like to see greater protections for our whales and marine mammals in New Zealand. We have got 55 Māui’s dolphins left, nationally our New Zealand sea lions are critically endangered, and the Hector’s dolphins just around the corner from this area—a bit south—are, again, critically endangered. So the whale sanctuary sounds like a great idea, does it not? But when you read the legislation and the associated documents, you have got to ask yourself what the purpose of the whale sanctuary is. All this whale sanctuary does is make voluntary seismic surveying for oil and gas activities—which are currently voluntary, including in the entire exclusive economic zone—apply in this area. This whale sanctuary does not provide much sanctuary if that is the only thing it does. If all it does is to still allow seismic surveying, the very weak and permissive voluntary code of conduct should have applied. Basically, to sum up the code of conduct, you need a couple of people on the ship having a look out to see whether they can see any dolphins or whales. This is far from best practice. For a marine country where our economy depends on, and derives much of our income from, whale-watching and other tourism, I think this is almost laughable.

But I guess the biggest threat facing this area, which was graphically highlighted by the locals, is that while the Government gives on this hand, on the other hand it is massively endangering this beautiful part of the country with its risky deep-sea drilling agenda. I would like to thank the work of Ngāti Kurī. I was not at the Bluegreens Forum—surprise, surprise, I did not get an invitation—but what we saw was, in fact, more people outside the conference protesting this Government’s agenda than were there inside, despite being part of this collaborative process.

The Government describes this as the next frontier, the oceans. I think what it means is the next frontier for extraction, because although there is this new marine reserve, which is great and which we support, we have got to put it in contrast with all the oil and gas permits it has offered. You know, the Government is funding Trans-Tasman Resources $12 million to $25 million to literally suck up 50 million tonnes per annum of the Taranaki and Whanganui seabed. It is still, frankly, ridiculous that we need legislation in Parliament to get marine reserves passed because this party sat on its hands for the years it has been in Government and has not updated our marine reserves legislation, our antiquated 1971 Act. It is still missing its targets. Now two Ministers of Conservation have missed their target—Wilkinson and Smith—and we still do not have modern marine reserves legislation.

Although it is seeing new marine reserves created, let us not forget that this Government had to be taken to court by the people of the Akaroa community to get that marine reserve created. This Government will not protect all of the waters around the World Heritage - listed Subantarctic Islands. It is still not acting on what the scientists urge us to do to protect the Māui’s dolphins. New Zealand sea lions are still being caught in those lethal indiscriminate fishing nets, including earlier this year, yet the Government is not requiring we go to sea lion - safe fishing techniques. We are seeing the Government granting minerals exploration and mining permits in benthic protected areas. We are seeing less than 0.5 percent of our oceans protected in marine reserves and a gigantic part of our oceans open to oil drilling.

What the Greens in Government would do is take this seriously. This is the smarter, greener economy. We would modernise our marine reserves law. We would undertake spatial planning in that exclusive economic zone, protecting a great, vast area—more than National. We would include protection of the Kermadec Islands, overnight taking New Zealand from 0.41 percent to 15 percent of our waters protected. We would act with the urgency and the haste that scientists say we must if we want to give the Māui’s dolphin a shot at survival. We will protect the New Zealand sea lion. When it comes to protecting the marine environment that we Kiwis love, it is the Green Party that is the champion, not that party, with a lick of “greenwash”. When you look at National’s track record, it is not the champion of the marine environment.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise in support of this legislation, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill, sponsored by the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith. It is another opportunity that the Minister has brought forward to create marine reserves around the coastline of New Zealand. When we brought another bill to the House only a few weeks ago regarding marine reserves, I indicated in the debate that there had been a lot of talk from the Green Party and Labour Party in Opposition about marine reserves. They did talk a lot about them for those 9 years. National seems to be creating them. I think that is all about delivering on stuff, not just consulting on it, which is the mark of our Government.

This bill establishes the following management measures off the Kaikōura coast: a marine reserve; a whale sanctuary, for obvious reasons; a New Zealand fur seal sanctuary; five customary fishing areas; fishing regulations that are specific to the area; and an advisory committee that the Minister will draw upon to make management decisions. Interestingly, of the five customary fisheries areas, two are taiāpure—local fisheries areas—and three are mātaitai reserves. In a taiāpure, you can, in fact, fish. In a mātaitai, as a general rule, you do not fish. With taiāpure, it tends to be local iwi and the community who manage the taiāpure and make recommendations to the Minister. With a mātaitai, it is generally iwi led, and it is a non-fishing area. So it is quite a broad approach to the marine management and protection tools that the Minister is bringing to the House today on behalf of all those who worked in the Kaikōura and upper South Island area—all those communities and all those iwi. I know that he does it with some pride. I know that he does it, acknowledging that it was the people down there who did the hard graft. I support him in bringing this legislation to the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. New Zealand First will also be supporting this bill, of course, as all parties in this House are doing. Kaikōura certainly is a special part of New Zealand. I was fortunate to visit there at the end of last year to have a look at the situation there in terms of the concerns of the Kaikōura community—in particular, in relation to the seismic surveying taking place off the coast in relation to oil and gas exploration, which was of great concern to the people whom I spoke to in Kaikōura. The fact is they have such a wonderful area for viewing whales, plus all the other marine life in the area, and they were concerned about the possible impact of some of those activities on the marine life in the area and, of course, by implication, the possible impact if the whales were to move on or be scared away as a result, and what that would do to the community in terms of tourism, people visiting, local economic development in the area, and so on and so on. The ramifications were quite significant.

So to hear that this consultation has been going on for 7 years—it is a long time, but it is very good that local iwi, in terms of Ngāti Kurī of Ngāi Tahu, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura; recreational fishers; the Kaikoura Boating Club; local commercial fishers, including of rock lobster, pāua, and inshore finfish fishers; charter fishing operators; tourism operators; and the Kaikōura branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society all worked together to develop the Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura paper and form the Te Korowai group. They came up with this over a period of years as a recommendation to the Government in 2012. It is a great initiative on behalf of that Kaikōura community to come through with that, which has ended up in this piece of legislation.

Also, in relation to the area, there is the New Zealand fur seal colony. It is quite extraordinary how when you drive down that coastline you see the seals basking in the sun on all the rocks and living so close to the road, and being so accessible for humans to be able to watch them—it is quite extraordinary. Also, the pool that Nicky Wagner talked about for the pups and the creches, as they call them, is quite extraordinary. This is a good piece of legislation that assists that whole area.

The marine reserve is going to be very significant. The Hikurangi Marine Reserve of 10,416 hectares is focused on the very deep waters of the canyon, connects with the land for about 2 kilometres just north of Goose Bay, and extends out to 23.4 kilometres off the coast. So it is a very, very sizable area, and no mining, fishing, or harvesting of any kind will be allowed in this area. This new reserve is larger and deeper than any other existing marine reserve near New Zealand’s three main islands.

Then, of course, there is the Kaikōura whale sanctuary of 4,686 square kilometres. The sanctuary will be extending 45 kilometres north and south of the Kaikōura Peninsula and 56 kilometres out to sea. This will protect the sperm, humpback, southern right, blue, killer, and other whales that frequent the area, and it will prohibit high-level seismic survey work in the area. So that does afford a level of protection.

And then there is the Ōhau Point New Zealand fur seal sanctuary, 700 metres along the coastal highway of State Highway 1 and about 50 metres to the low-water springs mark. There are something like 3,000 seals in this area, and this bill ensures there will not be human interference, in terms of public access and ensuring that people do not actually go into those seal colonies. It was shocking a number of years ago when we had that tragic incident where a seal was battered to death in that—

Hon Maryan Street: Not just one.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Just one—it was just the one?

Hon Maryan Street: No, several.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Several, was it not? Yes. It was tragic that that happened, and I think it really did highlight how elements within the community choose to operate in that way, in a shocking manner, when those seals themselves were so unfortunate. They are so close to human civilisation, and we have to do all we can to protect them.

Then, of course, this bill also includes provision for some customary fishing beds and restrictions on some commercial fishing in certain areas there, and also new recreational fishing regulations. Recreational catch and size limits are to be tightened within the two Te Korowai areas, due to the concern about unsustainable pressure on fishing stocks. Again, that helps that whole marine environment in the area.

New Zealand First supports this bill. There are many areas around New Zealand that need this type of assistance. Our Local Government and Environment Committee has been looking at a lot of these things, including, as was mentioned before, this week the situation with Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins off the west coast of the North Island—in particular, where the Māui’s dolphins are located there are only 55 left in the world. Again, that is something that has to be looked at very, very urgently in terms of how we will ensure those 55 dolphins are protected and how we can help regenerate that very, very small group of dolphins and, hopefully, in years to come get them back up to a reasonable number. It will take 20 to 30 years just to get them back, perhaps, into the hundreds, but they were there in the 1970s, and it is a great shame that they are down to 55. Likewise, the Hector’s dolphins are under pressure, as well, and these dolphins are found only in New Zealand. Therefore, we—New Zealand as a nation—have a responsibility to protect them. New Zealand First will support this and we look forward to it coming to our select committee and to assisting this bill in its passage through this House.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Like other members, I have had the pleasure of driving along this wonderful coastline of Kaikōura with my family—over Christmas, actually. It was about 12 degrees—it was January—but it was still a very beautiful place. It is not just what is on the surface but what lies underneath that is important, so this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill, is a significant one for New Zealand conservation. It seeks to address the current lack of formal protection and recognition of marine species in the submarine canyon and other natural marine habitats.

The phrase “te korowai” refers to a cloak of a chiefly person laid over something so as to ensure its care and protection. It is worth noting that although we have got about a third of the land mass in Department of Conservation estates—that is, one-third—the marine environment is a new frontier for conservation. New Zealand has some of the most spectacular and important oceans of the world, and National is working very hard to protect them. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. With the indulgence of the House for a moment, I want to use a little story from my own experience that I hope will demonstrate the impact that adventure tourism and whale watching, in particular, has had on the township of Kaikōura and demonstrate why this particular piece of legislation is so useful.

My family and I went to have a look at the whales and do the whale-watching experience some years ago. The first day we got there, it was too choppy to go out. The sea was too rough and the trip was cancelled. We were to turn up the next day and try again. So we decided to do something else, of course, on that first day. Of course, Kaikōura had learnt to cater for just that situation. Its tourism infrastructure has developed alongside the whale-watching tourism venture that we know so well. It is an extraordinary thing to do to go out a very short distance from the shore and, because of the sheer steepness of that continental shelf and the depth that is suddenly achieved, have these whales on our doorstep by that freak of nature, that edge of the continental shelf. But the Kaikōura township and community has equipped itself to deal with the off days as well. So my family and I did something else. We did another bit of adventure tourism. We went up Mount Fyffe. We enjoyed that experience as well.

My point in relating this is that adventure tourism and the kinds of things for which Kaikōura is now famous provide economic development in a region. Economic development in our regions does not come only from drilling for oil and gas. Here we have a wonderful example of a region that is thriving because of its natural features. It is no wonder that the people of Kaikōura are so up in arms about the prospect of drilling for oil and gas. It is no wonder. This is an area where it might be an either/or situation. I want to come to that in the context of this bill, because this bill is basically a good bill. I am pleased to see it here. I am pleased that it has reached this stage, and Labour is happy to support it. But can I just make a couple of points, because this is not over yet.

First of all, I want to acknowledge Peter Lawless, who came to see me in my office in Nelson to talk to me about Te Korowai o te Tai o Marokura, about its establishment, about its development, and about the process by which it hopes this bill might finally arrive in this place. I was delighted to tell him that Labour would be pleased to support this bill. He was acting as a facilitator on behalf of the Te Korowai guardians and presented this to me. It was a testament to the people of that area who care about what happens to it. I want to pay a tribute to the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, Te Korowai, at this stage of the legislation. Its commitment and its energy have brought it this far. The Minister of Conservation is the lucky recipient of the result of this work. That is not to detract from any credit that he deserves for bringing it to the House in this state, but I do just recognise the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, Te Korowai, and its role in this process.

I want to go to one of the points that is not finished. There is the provision in this legislation for the gazetting of notices, and there are two notices that the Minister must gazette. First, let us recognise that this bill establishes a whale sanctuary and a seal sanctuary. These are good things. In respect of the whale sanctuary there will be a Gazette notice implemented within 1 month of this Act coming into effect that would impose restrictions on seismic surveying in the area. My point is this: imposing a restriction on seismic surveying begs the question of why seismic surveying would be allowed in a whale sanctuary in the first place.

This is one of these moments when the Government does need to work out which of these two regional development initiatives it is going to support. Why would we have any seismic surveying in a whale sanctuary? It is not a question of just putting restrictions on the kind of seismic surveying, but one of why we would have any seismic surveying. I am not a scientist, and I stand to be corrected, but what I understand about it is that having seismic explosions at depth that test the topography, the texture, and the construction of the seabed and the underwater terrain in a whale sanctuary makes no sense at all. Here is a region that is thriving on adventure tourism and on its natural blessings, really—the things that it has around it, its natural features. So I would like to see at some stage, when this bill goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee, that very close scrutiny is paid to this idea that the Minister should provide restrictions on seismic surveying, when, in fact, if we are going to have a whale sanctuary, let us have a whale sanctuary.

One of the things that I learnt when I was out on that boat watching the whales—and the talk that they give one on the boat is stunning; it is just stunning—is that at 3,000 metres, or 3 kilometres, which is the depth to which these whales descend off the continental shelf just off the Kaikōura coastline, nobody knows what body shape the whale takes under that pressure. What body shape does the whale take under that pressure? What we do know is that seismic reverberations and the kinds of explosions that are involved in prospecting through seismic surveying will have an impact on these mammals. So why would we do it?

My challenge to the Minister is that although we support this bill and would like to see a whale sanctuary in place and would like to see a seal sanctuary in place and would like that area protected, why not go the whole distance and say that there shall be no seismic surveying, there shall be no deep-sea drilling, and there shall be no oil and gas exploration because there is no need?

This exploration is not the only answer to our economic woes. What we ought to be doing is maximising the protection of this area because it is a good thing to do for the environment. Not only that; it is of economic benefit to that region, and that cannot be disputed. I hope that that is considered when this bill goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The problem I have with the kind of hocus-pocus science we have just heard from across the House about whales and deep-sea drilling exploration is that that member, Maryan Street, acknowledges that she does not know what whales are afraid of, and yet she does not hesitate to give a very strong position that is absolutely against any kind of deep-sea exploration for oil. It is very confusing because, on the other hand, another member of the Labour Party, the Hon Shane Jones, gives out exactly the opposite message. So what are we to believe from the Labour Party? What is its position? Well, frankly, I do not think it knows what its position is, because on the one hand we have one member of Parliament from Labour who seems to understand that deep-sea drilling can actually bring benefits, and then we have, seemingly, the rest of the members who rely on hocus-pocus science, which they admit they do not even know, to debunk that signal. So that kind of just summarises Labour all over. It does not really know where it is.

I did google what whales are afraid of, because I reckoned that this kind of hocus-pocus science is as good as their hocus-pocus science, and what I have learnt today from some person on the internet is that whales are afraid of sharks and killer whales. So that is my scientific contribution. The Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill is a great bill, and we will have fun with it at the Local Government and Envronment Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. This is a significant bill, and in addition to supporting it wholeheartedly along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I would like to acknowledge the whānau and hapū of Ngāti Kurī in Kaikōura for their driving contribution to Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura and the culmination of bringing this bill to the House. It is wonderful to see all of the features that will be given due recognition through this legislation.

I do think of my cousins in Ngāti Kurī because they have been involved, and are involved, in every aspect of their taonga in Kaikōura. In talking about that whānau I also acknowledge my own connection to my grand-uncle, Rangi Solomon, or, as we affectionately called him, Uncle Rangi, and Auntie Dee Solomon, and their pā harakeke, which is, in Māori, their descendants—their huge family. It is an enormous whānau of all my cousins there. They have been involved in every aspect of contributing to that community—for example, the whale-watch business, which was established largely through the driving force of a few whānau such as my Uncle Bill Solomon. They always knew that there were whales along the coastline. They were generations of fishermen. And to see that opportunity there and to transform that whole town now into not only a leading internationally renowned tourism business but also a—what was it—$134 million - odd revenue earner for that community is an astounding contribution that they have made.

But there were also the little things. I remember as a young child our family going up to see our cousins in Kaikōura in Ōaro. In those days you could just go down to Ōaro and turn over a rock at low tide and there was plentiful pāua. That was our upbringing—how we grew up—especially where my cousins were from. I do have a deep affection for my cousins. I am really pleased to see contained within this bill a mātaitai reserve because, unfortunately, these days you cannot just go over there, turn over a rock, and there is your pāua. You have to do a bit more scratching around. You might have to frolic around with the seals, which is good fun, but you might have to scratch around a bit harder to actually find our delicious kai.

It is wonderful to see the mātaitai reserves in particular in Mangamaunu and Ōaro and also the taiāpure. I also enjoy fishing in Kaikōura. I did some fishing over the holiday break and I know that when you go down to South Bay during the summer time it is heavy boat traffic. Everyone goes out there. They enjoy dropping their pots and putting out their lines, and enjoying a day’s fishing. It is really great to see in this bill that there is a taiāpure around the Kaikōura Peninsula. So that—[Bell rung] Oh! One more minute? Time goes fast. It is great to see a taiāpure peninsula and that the local hapū will have a say there.

I could have gone into many other aspects of this bill. I am really delighted to see it. We know that the sanctuary for these whales is not limited to just the confines of this bill. As we know, the passage through those vast canyons deep under the water goes all the way up to Pegasus, up to the Cook Strait. These whales travel large distances. So it is not just focused there. I hope to pick up on other matters in this bill in further contributions. I do commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. As with the Government’s subantarctic marine protection legislation, the Green Party is supporting the bill because this is a step forward for marine protection, but it is not going far enough. We are also supporting it to, of course, keep faith with the community representatives in the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, which worked very hard for more than 7 years to develop the proposals.

It is to the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians that we pay tribute because it was its initiative to develop some protection for the Kaikōura coastline. It was not a Government initiative that has led us to this bill. Its work was in response to an early proposal for marine protection by Forest and Bird around the Kaikōura Peninsula in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So it has been a long time coming in getting some protection for this dramatic stretch of coast.

Rino Tirikatene talked about fishing as a child. It has been the community’s concern too—the reduction in shellfish and the decline in the recreational fishery that has led people to propose some fishing regulations that are specific to the area that the bill includes, and also the three mātaitai reserves and two taiāpure to recognise Ngāti Kurī’s strong customary interests in the area and their desire to protect those cultural values.

But we have had National members, including the Minister of Conservation, suggest that the oceans are the new frontier for conservation and that National is somehow the saviour of the marine environment with this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because, as my colleague Gareth Hughes spoke about, it is this National Government that is opening up our oceans to major resource exploitation, to very risky oil drilling, encouraging seabed mining, and that is directly at odds with our marine protection.

So this bill is not that ambitious because although it is protecting an area in the Hikurangi Marine Reserve—sizable though it is; 10,000 hectares—there is not a great deal of fishing pressure in that area. In fact, if you look at the regulatory impact statement, there is an estimate that the annual impact of displaced fishing activity will be only $1.1 million. So it is not a significant area for commercial fishing. Yet Kaikōura is a really important area for marine tourism. As others have said, it generates $134 million annually, locally, and it is part of a much bigger marine tourism industry.

Fifty percent of the international visitors to New Zealand take part in marine tourism. They spend $1.6 billion while they are here. If National was genuinely interested in having an economy that recognised its dependence on a healthy environment, it would be doing much more in this bill to protect our marine environment on which that marine tourism depends and on which amenity values of New Zealanders depend, because so many Kiwis love going to the coast, particularly the Kaikōura coast. But National is not interested in genuine, solid marine protection. The sanctuary that this bill establishes will still allow seismic surveying. To correct the member for Waitaki, seismic surveying can have quite substantial impacts on marine mammals, which is why there is a code of practice. But the fact that seismic surveys, even though they are not the worst sort, can occur in the whale sanctuary shows that there are some quite considerable flaws in the bill.

Another of the flaws is the very limited area of the rocky coast that the Hikurangi Marine Reserve covers—only 2 kilometres. Its very jagged boundaries will create quite significant enforcement difficulties. It will create edge effects. Those boundaries have been criticised by both Forest and Bird and the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society. Another of the flaws in the bill is that National, in its stingy funding of conservation, is not giving the Department of Conservation any more money to help with enforcement and compliance of the marine reserve boundaries, and that is expected to cost about $100,000 a year. We look forward to submissions and we hope, through the select committee process, to be able to improve the bill.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill at its first reading. It is a great privilege to do that today. I was in Kaikōura on Sunday when it was announced, and unlike the carping that we have heard from the Greens, who are negative from the sidelines, who do nothing, who just talk ridiculous—

Hon Members: Carping!

MAGGIE BARRY: Yes, carping. It was a pun that was intended. They are not in the green space at all. They do nothing for the environment. Talk is cheap and so is their rhetoric and so is their substance, of which there is little.

This bill, on the other hand, has a great deal of substance, and it had complete agreement from the people who were there. The collaborative method that we have been using, which has taken 7 years to get to this point, has been a remarkable coming together of the community. People from the outside who understand nothing of the needs of this community would do well to consider this bill in its detail. The balance is right. It is a stakeholder collaborative model that works wonderfully well. I look forward to speaking about it in more detail on another occasion. In the meantime, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill

Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Debate resumed from 19 March.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Last evening there was a lot of hot air coming from that side of the House trying to make trouble out of nothing. It came from one Phil Goff. The sorts of things he was saying were: “The Minister of Customs has yet to explain to the House why his budget has blown out.”, “What required a blowout of $13 million extra?”, “Is that the last of the blowout?”, “This is only the first tranche. Are we going to have the same problems with the second tranche?”, “There have been variations that have caused the extra costs.”, etc., etc., etc. And he asked that I come back and explain to the House today exactly what has been going on. I have done that work. The Joint Border Management System provides a single channel, a single trade window, for importers and exporters to comply with New Zealand’s border requirements. We are doing it to make a more efficient system. It is going to save $450 million of exporter and importer funds over the next 10 years. The Joint Border Management System has the full support of industry, which is partly paying for it through cost recovery.

Two major change requests for tranche one were approved by the Joint Border Management System joint executive board back in 2012. Those change requests, which had an impact on timing and budget, were supported by industry. They were to, first of all, switch from a single delivery date to a longer-term phased delivery, more in keeping with modern IT practice, and, secondly, to incorporate changes in the World Customs Organization message format—WCO Data Model 3—to ensure that the Joint Border Management System is equipped with world standard work flow into the Trade Single Window. The Joint Border Management System is now a multiyear phased programme of work, so there is no single finish date. It is like building a travel website. The first stage might tell you the flights you have got to book, and then later modules provide access to hotels, rental cars, insurance, entertainment, and the like.

Grant Robertson: Tim Groser knows about all of that.

JOHN HAYES: So does Shane Jones. The Trade Single Window has been up and running since 1 August 2013 and is working well. There have been 265,000 transactions that have been successfully made to date. The feedback from industry about the Trade Single Window has been superb. Last night Mr Goff was trying to compare it with INCIS. I would point out that INCIS was a computer program that was never ever put to work. It was never actually implemented. We are not in that situation, because, as I have said, this system is already working and we have had 265,000 transactions so far. In a typical year you can expect about 600,000 transactions.

The program is, contrary to Mr Goff’s assertions, within budget. A total of $77.2 million has been spent to date out of $89.7 million. Labour members have repeatedly been informed of this progress through my committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and through answers to written questions. Indeed, there have been a number of articles in the media, back to June last year, documenting the increased budget and the changes of timing for implementation. The choice of IBM as a provider was up to the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries, and they went through standard Government procedure processes, which do not involve Ministers.

As I said, the Trade Single Window has handled 265,000 transactions to date. All outward messages from the Customs Service to traders are going through this process, and 24 percent of inward trade lodgments are going through the Trade Single Window. Industry pilot partners are satisfied with the performance. It processes transactions in an average of 28 seconds. Each transaction is processed in 28 seconds, saving them time and money. Traders will progressively move on to the Trade Single Window through 2014 and 2015, and ultimately it will deal with approximately half a million export transactions annually, 1.4 million import transactions, and 124,000 cargo reports.

Pilot partners, which represent 63 percent of total transactions, worked with the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries to develop, test, and launch arrangements for the window. One is CargoWise. It handles, I think, something like 50 percent of industry transactions. It is very pleased with the system, and has said so both to the Minister and publicly, in fora like the Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Federation Conference. CargoWise marketing has said to its clients: “We urge you to work with us to move you to the new ediEnterprise web service as quickly as possible and enjoy a considerable cost saving as well as a much more predictable and reliable service.” Fonterra’s direct connect development provider, SAP, in Europe, said that the Customs Service is the best customs administrators it has ever dealt with, and I would just add that that has been my experience over the last 9 years in this House. I have always thought that the Customs Service is one of our best Government agencies. SAP goes on to say that it is the best administration it has ever dealt with, in terms of support and responsiveness, and it deals with many.

Let me just go through the budget information that was sought last night, which of course Mr Goff has had for some time, had he ever bothered to read through answers to parliamentary questions and his written questions. The approved capital budget in 2010 was $75.9 million. Cabinet approved an additional expenditure of $8.9 million from within the existing Customs Service and Ministry for Primary Industries capital expenditure baselines and a $4.9 million fiscally neutral transfer from operating funding to capital funding. That then gives you a total budget of $88.7 million, of which $77.2 million has been spent to the end of February this year. I hope that answers the questions that were raised last night. I am in absolute support of this piece of legislation, which is outstanding and very well brought to this House and managed by a very competent Minister. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I think what we have heard there is one part of the story. It is the good part of the story. It is the part that we actually agree with. We agree with the need to streamline our Customs Service. We need to have a better system than we have at the moment. But the part that Mr Hayes left out and that Maurice Williamson went apoplectic on last night in his attempt to try to show how wonderful this is—I think he doth protest a little too much. But it is a good strategy. It is a good strategy to get out there and be on the attack, rather than being on the defensive, because that is where he should be. But let me start with a little more of this story. Let me flesh this out a little more than what we have at the moment. As I say, it depends on how you tell the story about this Trade Single Window.

We agree with this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill, because the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries together need to have a better system than they have had. We introduced this concept when Labour was in Government. The current system is 15 years old. It is starting to get out of date. It is not up with the play. Therefore, with the immense amount of importing and exporting that we have in this country, these bills will minimise the transaction costs—in theory, anyway. They will also help us to be in sync with the World Customs Organization and help with some of our biosecurity priorities that we want to have out there as well.

What Mr Hayes and Mr Williamson did not talk about was the IT system that is going off the rails. It is going off the rails. We heard Mr Williamson stand up and say: “No, it’s nothing like Novopay. No, it’s nothing like INCIS. It’s completely different.” Let us have a look at this. First of all, the budget itself has gone up 17 percent. It may have been flagged, but it started off at $76 million and it has now gone up to nearly $90 million. That is a 17 percent increase. But the devil is in the detail, because that is not the big problem with what has been going on here. The big problem is that what was promised has not been delivered. What was promised under that $90 million has not been delivered.

What we have now, and what Mr Hayes, regretfully, did not talk about, was the fact that we have the old system under the Customs Service, CusMod, operating in parallel with the new system. He said that that is a good idea, and on one level I agree with him. We do not want to have a Novopay. We chucked out Datacom and immediately had Novopay fall over. But what we do not see in the immediate future—and actually not even in the medium-term or in the long-term future—is any confidence that CusMod will be phased out, as it is supposed to be. The tranche one of this funding—which we have just talked about, $90 million—has not delivered what this Government was promised it would by IBM. So what has happened? I will tell you what has happened. There is a major scrap going on now between the Customs Service and IBM, and IBM is not delivering what it said it would deliver on the dates that it said it would do it. This is another IT system that is going right off the rails—right off the rails.

Let me tell you what the State Services Commission, Treasury, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet performance improvement framework review talked about when it talked about this system. “Tranche 1”, it says, “will provide a Trade Single Window as well as some new Risk and Intelligence tools. The Trade Single Window seems well advanced and in many ways this is the lower risk part of [the Joint Border Management System]”—the lower risk part.

What it goes on to say is that, actually, the big part of what this is has not been delivered. Mr Hayes could be right. Right now there could be some transactions going through, but it is not doing what it should be doing, which is looking out for some of that risk. It goes on to say: “It was concerning to hear that the scope for the Risk and Intelligence tools had not been finalised at the time we undertook our review …”—this was some time ago, but it is still not finalised as of now—“Added to this we were advised that the main contractor was having difficulty in bedding down these new tools and although we were not able to explore this in any detail, it is an issue which Customs needs to address.”

This has not been addressed. This is going on and on. If you talk to anybody in and around the Customs Service—anybody who is able to talk, because there is a major operation in place right now to close down and shut up anybody who wants to talk about this—or you talk among people in the IT industry who know anything about this, they will 100 percent confirm that this is severely off the rails and it is not meeting either its scope of work that it promised it would do or the time in which it was supposed to do it. Right now the Customs Service is contemplating taking IBM to court to ensure that it is able to actually deliver what it said it would do in the time that it said it was going to do it. Of course, this is election year, and who wants another Novopay in election year? So the Customs Service has closed this right down.

I do not disagree with John Hayes when he said that the Customs Service is a well-run organisation—it is—but in this case it is out of its depth. It is completely out of its depth, and so is the Minister of Customs, who grandstands about himself being the self-appointed expert on IT situations. I can tell you that this is well and truly out of the scope of the brand new iPad that he happened to buy the other day. This is in the big territory, not the little territory.

What does the State Services Commission go on to say? “There are many examples of information technology programmes having struggled or failed due to poor scope control and scope control for JBMS should be addressed as quickly as possible. The scope should be locked down and any further changes should only be agreed at the most senior level and only for absolutely essential changes.” In other words, it is disagreeing with Mr Williamson’s adding on and adding on. This is what sank the INCIS 15 years ago: it kept being added on and added on.

This report was from 2012 and it has not been fixed. It has not been fixed. It has not been fixed, and we are now looking at a total bill for this programme of $204 million, of which just $90 million is the capital expenditure. The rest of it is the operational expenditure, and it is supposed to finish in 2021, except it will not. It will not be able to achieve what it said it was going to achieve at the end of tranche one. We are left in the dark about what is going to be in tranche one because the papers cannot be released, but tranche two is not even ready to be implemented because it is not in any way ready to go. This is a debacle. It is something that is unfolding as we speak, and the Minister is desperately trying to cover it up and keep it out of the public eye.

At the centre of the problem is the core of the system around the technologies for smarter targeting of people and craft crossing our borders, and that part—that most sophisticated part, the part we were going to get most benefit from in this system—is nowhere near in place. You can stand up and talk about how many people and how many seconds have gone through the system—and it is only a fraction of what it should be—but right now the proper technologies that we were promised would be delivered have not been delivered, the budget is out of place, the old system is running alongside a new system with all the costs that are included in ensuring that the old system and new system are running side by side, and there is now no date for closing down the old system. The old system is continuing on because the new system has fallen over. All of the technologies around the new system are not in place. This is a debacle that will be on the scale of Novopay, and it could not happen at a better time, in the middle of an election year.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak on the third readings of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill.

Just following what has been said by Labour, we have done a fair bit of research on this because we were alerted to the problems with IBM and the Customs Service in this new process. If you go back to 2010 when it was first mooted and when I have the first information from, the Customs Service’s answers to the select committee were that prime vendors may not provide the entire solution as requested in the Joint Border Management System request for proposal and/or the price may not fall within budget expectations. Very early on, they were seeing that there were some problems. It did say that full implementation of the system was expected to take 4 years, with the first parts of the system becoming operational in 2012. So full implementation should be here with us right now, and it clearly is not.

The Customs Service moved on to say, on another date, 14 June 2011, that its resources are under pressure as it delivers the Joint Border Management System, digitally enhanced systems, and SmartGate technologies. It just kept going on, with one thing after another. One was that industry stakeholders may not contribute to the development costs to the level expected. Of course they could not. They would not, and should not, be expected to pay for a muck up by the Customs Service agency itself. It says IBM has borne the costs of remedying defects, but it has nothing definitive on the cost of changes and the modified functionality. So it was a little bit at sea on where it was headed to.

Then I note the public relations part comes in—“How are we going to manage? How are we going to do damage control over this?”. So it contracted a senior communications adviser to manage communications for the development and implementation of the Joint Border Management System. That happened, it said, around June last year. It had always had five staff before then and now has seven. The new adviser’s role is one of the seven. So was that to manage communications to the customers, to the people who need an efficient service, or was it part of the smoothing over of a problem like the one the Government effectively had with Novopay—although maybe it did not understand that then—a Novopay in the waiting?

There was certainly stuff that it wanted to smooth over as this ongoing process was completed. “Tranche 1 of the JBMS capital project will be completed during 2013/14. The ongoing annual operating expenditure requirements to maintain and support the JBMS are still to be finalised.” That—I am just going slowly towards the present—has faced delays, delays, delays, and we still have them. February 2013—it announced a delay until July. Early June—the release was delayed further, until August. Existing systems were to be kept functional until 2015. Then, of course, we heard that that was a useful means to make sure that all of the system was working, and it was all intentional and the like, but it is clear there has been some major problem with it.

We come into more recent times. Further, the Auditor-General’s office says CusMod is ageing and becoming more difficult to maintain. So it is costing more because it is ageing and it is not working like it was originally intended to. The Customs Service assesses the risk of a 48-hour failure of CusMod at 15 percent, with a 5 percent risk of a failure for up to 10 working days.

By the way, we just heard that it takes only a few seconds to get this process, the information that a customer might want, done. And, hey, the intention of this legislation is very, very good, and thus taking those few seconds, once you have loaded up everything, is fantastic, apart from waiting days and more sometimes to get things approved and through. So that is all very good, but this system is clearly not working. When it is working, it is working for those big companies that it has been trialled on. The trials have worked and it seems to be fine, but the rest of the players have not caught up with it.

So those are parts of the problem with the system. Novopay has been mentioned, and I think when we see the case that no doubt will come up against IBM, maybe some more truths will come out as to how much of a muck-up this really has been. Then we may also find out when this system will actually be implemented at its fullest.

So, as I have said before, the Green Party is supporting this legislation because we know that the intent is very, very good. It would be remiss of me not to mention the biosecurity aspects of it. That is what we are really hoping will get some marked improvements, because even in the last 2 or 3 weeks we have had more incursions noted that are breaking through into different parts of the country because something has got through our border. The Green Party is looking to improvements in this system and through the Ministry for Primary Industries and biosecurity, and we note that there are some. There are some more staff being brought back on and some more dogs being trained.

We need massive improvements to biosecurity. We hope this system can be implemented in a way that is totally effective and will make sure there is a significant reduction in incursions through good information, smart systems, a smart approach at the border, and biosecurity. They are costing this country millions and millions. I see even today in Fairfax another story about theileria and the cost to a farmer in conversion. It is a huge cost even to individual farmers, let alone the economy of this country.

This system needs to be very functional very soon, and we need to have very effective results from it. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a great pleasure to speak on the legislation arising from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill because it is another example of the National Government putting in legislation that is good for business, good for exporters, and good for biosecurity.

Last night this House was subjected to a very bizarre tirade that demonstrated Labour’s chaos and laziness. Believe it or not, it came from David Shearer and Phil Goff, who were claiming that the Minister of Customs had deceived Parliament and the system was a dog. In actual fact, neither of them had read the answers to their own questions, let alone the answers to the questions of Damien O’Connor from March 2013, which precisely detailed the budget for this excellent system.

The other point I want to make is this: that in actual fact the whole Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee went over to the Customs Service to have a look at how this system was being developed, and it was being developed in an ideal way in tandem. There were no plugs that were going to be pulled suddenly; it was done methodically so, indeed, glitches would be taken out of the system before any problems occurred. It is working very, very, very well. In fact, I will end by just saying that one of the major customers cargo-wise says this to its customers: “We urge you to work with us to move you to the new enterprise New Zealand Trade Single Window web service as quickly as possible, and enjoy a considerable cost saving as well as a much more predictable and reliable service.”

This legislation is another example of an excellent National Government providing much, much better public services.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the third reading of the two bills we currently have before us, the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. These two bills have been divided from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill, which we have been debating.

New Zealand First has supported these bills—the singular bill, as it was—through all stages of the parliamentary processes thus far, albeit we have had reservations in so far as this Government’s biosecurity agenda is concerned. We have raised these concerns, as I alluded to in the previous debate during the Committee of the whole House. We were encouraged by the Government’s signalling that it intended to split the bill into two bills, which we are now addressing. The greater part of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill deals, of course, with the Joint Border Management System, which is being developed by the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries.

The Customs Service’s website says of the Joint Border Management System: “JBMS will enable smarter, swifter border processing for goods passing in and out of New Zealand. The first stage of JBMS includes Trade Single Window (TSW), which will ultimately let exporters, importers and others in the cargo industry send all shipment details electronically to one place, rather than separately to several government agencies. This involves replacing the current cargo and craft reporting messages, such as import and export entries, with new messages that contain the information each of the agencies need. These new messages are based on version 3 of the World Customs Organization’s international trade data model, so are called WCO3.” This, we believe, is a good thing.

The part of the bill that deals with the Joint Border Management System is Part 11, inserted by clause 16. It establishes, amongst under things, how the Joint Border Management System is to be accessed and utilised, what information will be required by it and how the form of that information will be standardised, how regulations pertaining to the operation of it will be set, and what enforcement and penalty provisions will apply to its misuse. The lesser part of that bill, the first part, deals with several other concerns, including—strangely enough—the provisions around regulation making with regard to excise duties on motor spirits. I say “strangely” because it is unusual, to say the least, for any Government, much less this one, to devote the smallest part of any bill to the matter of how much coin the Crown can give itself reason to extract from the already desperately squeezed citizens of this fair country—in this case, the ever-downtrodden and hopelessly overtaxed motorist.

But, that said, it is not this first bill that concerns New Zealand First the most. We are largely in agreement with the provisions of the bill, and we regard the Joint Border Management System and, indeed, the Trade Single Window as being good things. If they work as advertised, they will simplify procedures, speed processes, and reduce costs associated with the importation and exportation of goods into and out of New Zealand, and that can be no bad thing. Less bureaucracy is usually better bureaucracy in our view. Rather, it is the second of the two divided bills that is of greater interest to New Zealand First and, I would posit, to the nation as a whole.

This second bill, the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill, is of greatest importance because it deals with biosecurity, as the title, of course, suggests. Biosecurity is a drum that New Zealand First will keep on banging, as will colleagues on this side of the House. And it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the typically fine contribution from the Hon Damien O’Connor, who, as all members will know, has both great knowledge and deep concern about this matter. He and other colleagues on this side will also continue to bang that same drum. We do this because it is accepted by New Zealand First and other parties on this side that biosecurity is perhaps the single most important issue faced by this country. It is an issue that the National Government does not always appear to appreciate in terms of significance or treat with appropriate priority.

Three-quarters of New Zealand’s economy depends on agriculture, and a goodly chunk of the rest relies on tourism. Both those industries depend entirely on the protection of plant and animal species from introduced pests and diseases: bacteria, viruses, bugs, insects, pathogens, contaminants, and other nasties that have the potential to take our primary industries out at the knees quicker than you can say “foot-and-mouth”.

This National Government on occasion—more often than not, in fact—appears to approach the issue of biosecurity in a rather cavalier fashion. At times it is blasé and at times fatalistic, and always, it seems to us on this side, there is consideration given to the dollar outlay ahead of the importance afforded to the utterly imperative requirement to keep the threats out at all costs. So we are tentatively encouraged—as I said during the Committee stage—that this bill has been divided and that biosecurity has been given some separate regard in a manner that appears to be beyond lip-service. We intend to watch developments in this area very closely.

It is not yet time to remove the biosecurity boot from the Government’s throat. Fruit flies and mosquitoes and viruses and bacteria do not exist solely in departmental reports and computer models. They exist in shipping containers, in second-hand tyres, and in used construction machinery imported, still dirty, from other parts of the world with less stringent procedures than our own. They exist, and they can exist, in the luggage and hand luggage of visitors from overseas who are allowed to waltz across our borders without so much as a by your leave, let alone an X-ray or a sniff from a detector dog, simply because they belong to the frequent flyer programme of a foreign airline. It is all well and good having a shiny new whiz-bang Joint Border Management System with lots of flashy acronyms and trendy buzzwords and pretty PowerPoint presentations, but the real dangers to this country and our economy exist on the ground in real life, where adequate staffing and proper inspections and unrelenting vigilance are still required.

So we greet the new regime that these two bills will bring with a measure of guarded optimism. We are, as I say, tentatively encouraged, and we will be watching this space very closely indeed. So in that light, and in closing, New Zealand First will support these bills, and we hope and trust that our cautious endorsement of them will not come back to bite the entire nation. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak at the third reading of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. These are bills that make important amendments to existing legislation. They are about underpinning the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the new $89 million Joint Border Management System—nothing wrong with that. I commend them to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak at the final reading of these two bills in relation to the Joint Border Management System: the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill.

We have heard the Government assert that the Trade Single Window of the Joint Border Management System is running to plan. “Everything is hunky-dory; nothing to see here.”, it asserts, just like it did with Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust: “Nothing to see; everything is going to be functioning properly.” That is the thing with information technology or computer terms. They are very sort of harmless and benign—you know, “Trade Single Window”. No one really knows what that means. We know we have seen a working demonstration, but when you actually get to IT systems, unless you are an IT whiz, no one really knows what a Trade Single Window is and what is actually behind the system, what is driving it, and what its functionality is. So we have got the Government here saying that, yes, we have this Trade Single Window system. We have paid $90 million for it—it was originally a $76 million system that we wanted to build. We engaged IBM, a major multinational corporate, to deliver this. And then it gets a bit hazy, because the time frames changed, the budget changed. They had to seek Cabinet approval again for an increase, so the budget has grown to some $90 million for delivery of this system, but we do not really know what the system is. Really, only those technically minded people will know.

What we have gleaned from the Government members is that all is not well with the Trade Single Window system. We have heard from the Minister of Customs during the Committee stage that there were issues around the system and the testing, and modules were still to be finalised. There was more testing that needed to take place, and extra functionality. There were issues around the scope of changes. So there is all this language around how we are not quite sure and how we have not really delivered what we thought was going to be delivered, but all the while the money is being used up. You can guarantee that that $90 million has been all spent—all spent—as we see from the Customs Services responses to the financial review to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It was a $90 million project. Tens of millions of dollars have gone into it—$40 million to IBM, and a host of nearly 100 consultants, contractors, and IT firms have all been nibbling away at this $90 million. And we still do not know whether the Trade Single Window is fully functional and whether those contractors have actually delivered on what they were contractually obliged to deliver.

We here on this side of the House have not had the comfort from the Minister that they actually have delivered on the job. In fact, I actually sense that when you are in these contractual arrangements with IT firms, they can get very sticky. We are talking big bickies, and we are talking about big, powerful companies. I wonder whether the tail is wagging the dog on this. I wonder whether IBM actually is playing hardball with the Customs Service and actually saying it has delivered what it believes the Customs Services wanted it to deliver, or, if there have been problems, and it is saying “Let us change the wording, let us change the language around this module or the functionality—technical terms—that we are delivering on.” So it will be interesting, because this tranche 1 of the Joint Border Management System was, according to the Customs Service’s responses to the select committee, to be complete—its estimated completion date—in June this year. So that is the end point.

Now we hear that that is not so much—it is a fluid project. There is no end point. There is still some functionality that we are still testing, which still needs to come through. So, as Mr Hayes said, it is a work in progress. Well, he did not actually say that, but words to that effect came from the Government. It has not got an end point, even though the actual budget has been approved for this project and the stated delivery time is in June this year. I mention that because we really are in the dark in terms of how this system is delivering and whether all of the contracted functionalities in the build of this system have actually been delivered. Certainly, we know that if there is a dispute, IBM is a company that will definitely want to make sure that it is not going to be doing any more work than it has—it will definitely demand that it is paid for it. Therefore, we have seen the budget blow up to $90 million.

We have not seen anything around tranche 2. What we really would like to see is the formal evaluation of this system, the evaluation of tranche 1. That, we understand, is due to Cabinet in June this year. But it will be interesting because no proposals, no costings, no scope of work have been provided for tranche 2 because they have not been able to really adequately deliver on tranche 1. We definitely need to see that evaluation. I know that there have been multiple layers of project teams and governance boards. From a project management point of view, I guess the Customs Service has done its best to put great systems and checks and balances in place. But, ultimately, the rubber meets the road when it comes to whether the Trade Single Window has delivered on all the functionality within time and within budget, as the Government had contracted to deliver.

We are very sceptical on this side because based on the language from the Minister and also on the information that has come to hand through my colleague Mr Shearer, it seems that there are problems with this system. What we do not want to see is another Novopay, another INCIS-type scenario, where we get a huge waste or get into a huge fight with a multinational company to try to seek some accountability for the failure of that company to deliver on what it has been contracted to deliver. We know that the Joint Border Management System is a great concept. It came out of the last Labour Government and we have supported it all the way through. It is the implementation that we have had real concerns about, because trade is the lifeblood, as we all know, for our country and our economy. So we need efficient streamlining of our border processes, and Customs Services does play a very key and a very creditable role. I must commend the Comptroller of Customs—I had not known what the word “Comptroller” meant, but I understand it is a term that comes from way back in time—Carolyn Tremain, and her team because they do a great job on that front.

I do recall these words from the Minister of Customs at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: If there was a major problem with the Joint Border Management System, with the Trade Single Window, that was impacting on our trade across our borders, he would take the first flight to the Bahamas. Well, we will have to wait and see whether that does transpire, because if there are problems with this system, we on this side of the House would all too happily and gladly see that Minister take a trip to the Bahamas. Aside from that, and aside from those concerns, we do commend this overall system and we commend this legislation to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): The last member to talk, Rino Tirikatene, was saying that he was a bit in the dark, or that the Labour Party is a bit in the dark, about what is happening. So I am here to say “Come to the light.” This legislation, the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill, is good legislation, and it is a good opportunity in their third readings to say that the National Government is clearly, clearly convinced of the importance of trade. I know that some of the Opposition parties are not. This legislation is one small part in promoting that trade.

We have heard a lot about this Trade Single Window. This is a way to speed up how we do our trading between our country and others, strangely enough. But speaking of speeding things up, I would just like to commend the bills to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am really excited—thrilled, in fact—to be speaking on this legislation. This is perhaps the sexiest and most exciting legislation to come before the House this week—the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. I think every MP in this House should be given an opportunity to speak on legislation such as this. The Joint Border Management System is an idea conceived when Labour was in Government. Joint border management will bring about more efficient transactions, enhancing tourism and facilitating overseas trade. The sophisticated computer software will enable our border agencies to identify and link people and goods moving between our borders. A Trade Single Window will be a hub for exchanging information electronically about importers, exporters, and travellers between all border agencies.

Facilitating better coordination of people—importers, exporters, and travellers—or goods that leave or arrive at our borders is an important element in creating a more productive economy. This facilitation process for border transactions is a crucial element in Labour’s vision to give New Zealand an economic upgrade. The Joint Border Management System and the Trade Single Window are important ingredients as Labour works to give New Zealand an economic upgrade to a high-value economy that will support better jobs and higher incomes. New Zealand needs an economic upgrade because our economy has been running on old software. Labour wants better jobs and higher wages for all New Zealanders, and the Joint Border Management System and the Trade Single Window are two important ingredients that can help us achieve that.

But we have got to make the point that the Government must give us assurances and confidence, and must give the public of New Zealand assurances and confidence, that the continued underfunding of our biosecurity—the monitoring and clearance—must not put our borders at risk. We need to ensure that our borders have the appropriate funding to keep them secure. National needs to make sure that the Customs Service’s IT systems do not result in ridiculous debacles on the front line of our border, similar to the debacles we have seen under this Government with ACC and Novopay. National also needs to ensure that New Zealanders’ information is protected when these information technology systems are sharing data between agencies and between other businesses.

It all seems really easy and uncomplicated, but where there has generally been a let-down when we see new IT systems being put in place is the incompetence—and I am reluctant to say this—but, so far, the experience that we have seen, and the experience that New Zealanders have seen is the incompetence of Ministers, and again it is the examples of Novopay and ACC. Labour substantially boosted New Zealand’s border security capacity. Scientific and operational systems were changed to more effectively investigate, eradicate, or manage biological threats. Labour set up Biosecurity New Zealand to coordinate the agencies that manage and protect our country against these threats. We developed a comprehensive biosecurity strategy, applied to all of New Zealand’s environments—land, fresh water, and marine—and to both indigenous and introduced flora and fauna.

I want to then conclude with the two main concerns, and, again, I want to say that it is the Government’s challenge, and we put that challenge on the table. It needs to be giving confidence to this House and to all New Zealanders that it is working to ensure that there is no stuff-up with the information and communications technology—with the Joint Border Management System as well as the Trade Single Window. It is disturbing to hear previous speakers on this legislation say that there is a scrap between the Customs Service and the information and communications technology provider. Another point I want to raise is that my colleague Damien O’Connor found that although funding for border systems—and that no doubt includes the Joint Border Management System—has increased, Budget documents also show that funding for border biosecurity has been cut by $6 million.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Construction Contracts Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill has now been considered by the Commerce Committee, chaired by Jonathan Young, and I thank the committee for its thoughtful and meticulous consideration. The committee received 31 written submissions and heard 22 oral submissions. Overall, there was much support for the fundamental policies in this bill, and this demonstrates the need for the proposed changes and reflects efforts that the Government made to consult with sector experts. As a result of the submissions, the select committee recommended a number of improvements and clarifications to the drafting to better achieve the Government’s policy intent and address concerns raised. I support the recommendations made.

The building and constructing sector is vital to our economy. It employs about 8 percent of our workforce and contributes about 4 percent of our gross domestic product. The Construction Contracts Amendment Bill is one of the regulatory changes supporting the amendments to the Building Act 2004 that this House has passed in the last 2 years. The package of regulatory changes is intended to contribute to this Government’s goal of an efficient and productive construction sector.

The Construction Contracts Act 2002 provides for the timely and cost-effective resolution of disputes in the construction sector. The processes in that Act are a lower-cost alternative to going to court. The review of the Construction Contracts Act found the system was working well but could be improved by reducing some costs and clarifying some processes. The key amendments in this bill will, firstly, remove the distinction between how the Act applies to residential and commercial construction contracts. The bill consolidates the processes in the Act so that one process applies regardless of the type of work the construction contract is for.

Secondly, the bill removes the distinction between the two different types of decisions that can be adjudicated under the Act. Currently, decisions on payment disputes can be more readily and easily enforced than decisions on disputes about rights and obligations. The bill will streamline the enforcement process so it is the same regardless of the subject matter of the dispute.

Thirdly, it expands the scope of the Act to include construction-related services. Parties to contracts for the performance of these services will then be able to access the payment and dispute resolution processes in the Act. This will be of particular benefit to consumers, helping them hold architects, engineers, and quantity surveyors to account for their work. It will also benefit designers and quantity surveyors, enabling them to use the payment provisions of the Act to ensure they are paid for their services in a timely manner. Due to possible impacts on professional indemnity insurance policies, the select committee has recommended that this amendment come into effect 1 year after commencement of the amended Act. The Minister agrees that this is indeed appropriate.

The bill also contains some other amendments to the Construction Contracts Act 2002 to streamline processes and to reduce costs. These include reducing some of the time periods in the adjudication and enforcement processes; secondly, clarifying some procedural steps such as how to seek an extension of time; thirdly, a new power for the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to obtain information for research and monitoring purposes; fourthly, consequential amendments to the definition of “residential occupier”; and, finally, clarifying how an adjudication order can be appealed, contested, or reheard.

I would like to outline some of the key changes to the bill recommended by the select committee that the Minister for Building and Construction supports. The committee, ably led by my friend and colleague Jonathan Young, recommends deleting the requirement to hold pre-adjudication conferences for all adjudication claims made under the Act. The requirement did not accurately reflect the policy intent, which was to address the risk of ambush claims. The Minister supports the new amendments the committee has recommended to address ambush claims. The bill will do this by inserting a pause into the adjudication process to limit the ability of a claimant to rush the adjudication for tactical reasons. It will also require adjudicators to allow a respondent more time if they believe that a claim has been served with undue haste for tactical reasons by the claimant. It also will clarify when and how other time extensions can be sought. Finally, it will require the information in an adjudicator’s notice of acceptance to be prescribed by regulations to guarantee consistency in information and ensure parties are aware of the process.

The select committee has also recommended changes that will clarify that contracts for the sale and purchase of second-hand assets and service contracts should be excluded from the scope of the Act. It will also override an incorrect interpretation of section 80(d) of the Act made by the court in two cases to ensure that the word “prescribed” is interpreted as “prescribed by regulations”. I understand that the quality of submissions received on this bill was high, reflecting the importance of the bill to the sector. The effort and thought put into helping the Government fine-tune this bill has been well received.

Another issue raised by some select committee members was the use of retentions in the construction market and the impact on subcontractors. This is not part of the bill, but following the collapse of Mainzeal Property and Construction last year, the Hon Maurice Williamson instructed his officials to look at how the system could be improved. This work is still continuing, but he is optimistic that a viable solution can be found. It is his hope that a Supplementary Order Paper can be added to this bill to address the issues that have been raised if a legislative solution is determined to be the best way forward. Just to set the record straight, Labour members of the committee stated that Maurice Williamson had changed his position on the retentions issue. This is wrong. As he said in this House, the Government is still not ruling anything in or ruling anything out. It is considering any changes being proposed, but they must be based on good evidence.

In summary, this bill will speed up dispute resolution in the construction sector, it will support the Building Act reform programme by making improvements to accountability in the construction sector, and it will maintain the efficient functioning of the private disputes resolution market. I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Tabling of Documents

Māori Television—Appointment Process for Chief Executive

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): First, I seek leave of the House to table a letter signed by me and crafted by Kris Faafoi to the chief executive officer of Television One.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

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

Bills

Construction Contracts Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I want to direct our attention to the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill, with some encouragement and direction from the shadow Leader of the House, who has informed me that, indeed, this bill has already been to the Commerce Committee—

Grant Robertson: It’s on its way back—second reading.

Hon SHANE JONES: —and is on its way back. I want to direct our attention to a provision in the bill that has been referred to by the Associate Minister for Local Government, who, I must say, I am waiting hear from, as indeed everyone in Northland and Whangarei is, as to whether he has initiated an investigation into why the civil infrastructure around Marsden Point, Ruakākā, is collapsing and has put potentially another $20 million liability on the Whangarei District Council books. I invited him to have a look at it last night. I do not want to embarrass him because he and I are proud members of the golden oldie rugby team. We are not quite as esteemed as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in former years in that role.

Anyway, let us come to “Retentions” in the commentary on the bill. We will support this bill. We look forward to the Minister of Building and Construction bringing a Supplementary Order Paper into the House to improve an area that has caused concerns for the shadow Minister of Commerce, Clayton Cosgrove—I dare not say “conniptions”, because that could mean “tantrums”. The concerns relate to the fact that the Minister has left it to the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, or what used to be known, when it had a far more focused Minister, as the Department of Building and Housing. The problem that the bureaucracy seems to have got itself lost in, with legions of lawyers, no doubt, is that retentions—and this bill unfortunately does not deal with it, yet it is called the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill—are potentially being abused or misused by the head contractor or the developer, and it is something akin, we fear, to a pyramid scheme.

That is a reasonable concern. It is something that blew up when Mainzeal Property and Construction turned to custard. I realise that litigation surrounds that receivership now, so I will not intrude into that area, as I am sure there are two sides to the story in relation to the litigation. But it is a very good point that if a firm has delivered on the contract, then the retention portion of its contract price ought to be made available without any delay because often these firms that are delivering services to the head contractor or the developer are, like a lot of small to medium sized businesses in New Zealand, starved of cash flow. The current regime has basically looked after the big end of town, unless you are a dairy farmer, but they are becoming bigger and bigger. I fear that the sort of archetypal dairy farmer like my dad will soon be a thing of the past, and you will have these large, syndicated agribusinesses, paying no capital gains tax and getting free water, but I will come back to that later. If only such levels of commercial virtue were visited upon the forestry, the fisheries, the wool, and the meat industries, then I would feel less sort of antagonistic towards the agribusiness barons.

Louise Upston: Which bill are we on again?

Hon SHANE JONES: But, anyway, let me come back to the bill. I was just giving an indication of some of my thinking to the fellow members of the Primary Production Committee, whom I hold in high esteem. I hold them in high esteem, and I am sure that they look lasciviously sometimes at the cash flows of the dairy farming fraternity. But, returning to “Retentions”, we are, well, not imploring the Minister but we want the Minister to bring forward a solution so that this bill can be plugged where our members on the select committee felt that it was adrift, and the area really is around the security of payment and retentions. We have a solution. We should not allow this particular part of the pricing and the payments of large-scale construction to turn into a pyramid scheme. It is not for me to identify firms that are engaging in this egregious practice, because that might lead to an accusation that I am abusing the sovereignty of the doctrine of parliamentary privilege, but unless they do pick their ideas up, I fear that the man who compared the current Minister of Justice with an acid-spitting cane toad could sort of leap forward again. He could leap forward again.

Grant Robertson: Dangerous.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. So I quite enjoy florid expressions, but I would say that that one tops it. That has gone right up to where you might sort of regard a high-ranking soul.

Providing that a Supplementary Order Paper comes forward, I think that the majority of us on this side of the House will have very few concerns. Indeed, there was a press statement put out recently by an organisation representing registered tradesmen and tradeswomen in the building sector complaining that this omission is actually crippling their businesses. I may be labouring the point, but the Minister has got an opportunity, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to bring forward a Supplementary Order Paper and solve it. There is no obstacle to his putting forward such a Supplementary Order Paper.

Of course, arbitration is absolutely necessary in this particular sector. I was not on the Commerce Committee, which was probably not to the benefit of the members opposite on that particular select committee. We have had lots of submissions from people concerned that they are not being paid enough for the work that is being done. The members on the other side of the House know that that is by and large accurate. Occasionally, you do get some miscreants or cowboys in the industry—yes, you do. Far be it from me on this side of the House to call them cowgirls. We do want to support the notion that where there is an intransigent set of disputes, it can go to an arbitrator—not disappear into the High Court, not disappear into extraordinarily expensive litigation, but arrive at a situation where a very prompt decision is delivered. That is what both parties deserve. That is a contribution to our concerns in respect of productivity. These small steps may seem insignificant in isolation, but when you add them up, there is a great deal of positive impact as to where these improvements can actually lead to the sector.

The sector has got a host of other problems. Today I had representatives from the Certified Builders Association of New Zealand come in and see me. They made some reference to this particular piece of legislation. They also referred to the need to develop and train the next generation. Indeed, we have a host of policies and I actually hope that the other side of the House shows the same level of zest that we do to bring forward the new generation of tradesmen and tradeswomen. Indeed, if we ever need an example of where it has not worked out to our satisfaction, it is Christchurch. Legions of our distant relatives from the Emerald Isle arrived after a number of them had been through the health system for conditions that I will not talk about in Parliament. A number of them have been found to have the wrong set of skills and are inappropriately matched. Let us invest in our own young people. Let us invest in the school-leavers. Let us continue to invest in the tradition and the esteem that in my time plumbers, carpenters, drainlayers, and a host of other vocational trade - qualified people held—not just in the universities.

I have been told not to talk about universities, for fear of straying into ethnic politics. I promise. The man to my right, Grant Robertson, I will tell you, is our designated spokesman etc. I may have some things to say about training—

Grant Robertson: Private training.

Hon SHANE JONES: —private training establishments and how they are actually distorting immigration policy. I have more to say about that but that could lead to a complaint to the Deputy Speaker that I am stealing someone else’s lines—someone who sits to the left of me from time to time. But that is another matter. We support this bill and look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper that plugs up what is an omission, and I am sure that both sides of the House want to see the Supplementary Order Paper as soon as possible. Kia ora tātou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thanks to the previous speaker, Shane Jones. You were stealing my light, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this Construction Contracts Amendment Bill. The last speaker did speak about an issue that we canvassed very strongly in the Commerce Committee, and that was around the area of retentions and security of payment, and, yes, we were assured that the Minister for Building and Construction and his officials are working on this.

There is a longstanding issue regarding retentions in the building sector. Please enter here that the member Shane Jones says he has got a solution, because he obviously did not have one when he was the Minister 5 or so years ago. This problem has been around for a long time. We were concerned to hear during submissions that contractors were using retentions as working capital. They were having payments delayed or holding retention amounts disproportionate to the contract prices. And all the time, this was undermining the sector’s growth and development in terms of its own productivity.

It is important to understand that the building and construction sector is vital to our economy. It employs around 8 percent of our workforce and contributes around 4 percent of our gross domestic product. We know, of course, how important this sector is down in Christchurch. It is important that what this bill is achieving is recognised, because at the very heart of this bill there is reform of, and improvement in, the disputes resolution processes in the construction sector. One of the areas that creates a lot of frustration, of course, is when there is disagreement and when, perhaps, a construction company has funds tied up when an owner of a property is unhappy, and there is this logjam, really, of progress that takes place. That does not benefit anybody. So this bill is designed to create some streamlining and improvements in this disputes resolution process and also to support the Building Act reform programme by making improvements to accountability in the construction sector and maintaining efficient functioning of the private disputes resolution market as well.

The principal amendments proposed in the bill would remove most of the distinctions between the treatment of residential and commercial contracts under the Act so that they would be seen as similar. It would extend the scope of the Act to apply to contracts for design, engineering, and quantity surveying work as well, because all three are very much part of the construction process. So it brings these areas within the scope of the Act. It removes the distinction between the enforcement of payment determinations and those relating to rights and obligations, and, of course, it makes the enforcement process more efficient. All of this will certainly serve to make progress in the processes of working through a contract if there is a dispute.

There are many different areas of work that we did. I will not touch on all of them, but I just want to touch on progress payments. It is very important for the industry that payments are received in due time. We recommended inserting new clause 8B “to delete the term ‘progress’ from the payment provisions. This amendment would allow parties to agree to a single payment on completion of work. This is particularly relevant to small construction works that are completed within a few weeks. We believe this amendment is desirable to make it clear that contracting parties are free to agree their own payment terms.” So it also brings some flexibility in that.

I commend this bill to the House in my closing comments here, knowing that it is going to bring considerable improvements. We also understand that the Minister and his officials are doing some work around retentions and security of payment.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I have slightly different statistics from Mr Young’s. The building and construction sector contributed around 5 percent of New Zealand’s GDP and employed about 7 to 8 percent of our workers. But that is covering the period between 2000 and 2008. I believe that this sector will certainly have contributed much more and employed many more now, with the Christchurch rebuild and high demand arising from the housing shortage in Auckland and other areas. As I have said, the building and construction sector is vital for New Zealand’s economic performance and our prosperity.

The proposed amendments in the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill are very important. They are seeking to protect not only the head contractors but also subcontractors. The Commerce Committee asked for statistics on construction cases in the District Court and High Court. I understand that the Ministry of Justice does not collect such data, nor does Statistics New Zealand. Like the situation concerning residential properties purchased by non - New Zealanders, where no one is collecting such data, this is another example where in New Zealand no Government organisations are collecting statistics in those areas. We are virtually flying blind and are in the dark.

I am glad to learn that under the proposals in this bill, specifically in clause 31, the new information-gathering powers will enable the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to gather data about construction cases in the courts. I thank the officials, who made reference to a paper written by Tómas Kennedy-Grant QC. The paper reviewed cases on the primary legislation, and summarised 177 court decisions. Of the summaries that referred to adjudication determinations, it was found that in one case the court made a different decision to the adjudicator. In one case a determination was held to be invalid due to procedural problems, and in four cases the adjudicator was found to have breached the rule of natural justice. The references and analyses are very important and valuable to ensure that we introduce meaningful changes that are working in the industry.

The adjudication process is important. The construction sector places significant reliance on the adjudication process. Other dispute resolution mechanisms, systems, or measures available to the industry are either unsuitable or untenable, due largely to the costs and time frames associated with the process. We have learnt from the submitters, such as the Registered Master Builders Federation, the Certified Builders Association, and the Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers (NZ) Inc., etc. that their members all place significant reliance on the adjudication process, and for some professional organisations the adjudication process is commonly the sole way of resolving disputes in construction contracts.

There are three further issues concerning the disputes resolution regime. The first two are in respect of the adjudication process. Firstly, if the parties choose to use the adjudication process under the Act, the adjudicator’s determination is binding on the parties but not directly enforceable. The Act requires the successful party to apply to the District Court if they wish to enforce the determination, and the District Court decision on enforcements of a determination can be appealed to the High Court by either party. Basically, the problems are that the decisions are binding but not directly enforceable. The avenues available to the parties are through appeals to the District Court or the High Court, where appropriate.

Secondly, new regulations have been made prescribing qualifications for adjudicators. The common practice for parties is to request one of the authorised nominating authorities to select an adjudicator to determine their dispute. In order to provide clarity, regulations are needed, and I am glad to learn that other officials will work on the regulations after the passage of this bill.

Thirdly, the Act presently distinguishes between disputes about payment and disputes about contractual rights and remedies. That distinction can be helpful. The construction industry, due to the nature of the profession, needs a disputes resolution system that is speedy, reasonable, simple to use, and cost-effective. I look forward to further debate on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.