LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : National, as members will be aware, opposed the Building Act. We did so because, as we said at the time, it was very prescriptive legislation. We said that there were issues in it that were over the top. Although we acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the Building Act 1991, we also made it very clear that the cumbersome approach that was to be adopted would put huge compliance costs on how the industry worked. We also said that because of the change from inspecting properties to supervising properties, we would see huge costs associated with any building, but mainly with the building of residential homes.

It is interesting that at that time we acknowledged there would be ongoing problems with this legislation, and here we are, 12 days after the Act came into effect—it came into effect on 1 April, April Fool’s Day—making significant changes to legislation that one would have thought, it having had the scrutiny of the committee at the time, and submissions having been received on it, the Government would get right. Supplementary Order Paper 361, which has been tabled, really says that the Government got it wrong, stuffed up, and is bringing it back under urgency to fix it up. Well, that is completely unacceptable. This is an $18 billion industry. The Government needed to spend the time, hear the submissions, and take into account all the points that were articulated at the select committee. National was well represented on that committee with Shane Ardern and myself. We said that the bill would not work.

Now the Government is abusing the process, dealing with this legislation under urgency. I want to know why this Supplementary Order Paper will not be referred to the select committee, if it is so important. If it is so important that we should be debating it under urgency in order to fix up a mess that National members identified last year would be created, then we believe that it is incumbent on the Government to say to the industry and everybody involved in it: “Let’s look at it again. Let’s get it right. Let’s hear submissions.” That is our position, and it is the reason why we will not be supporting this legislation’s progress.

Clause 3C on Supplementary Order Paper 361 is concerned with dams, and section 14(2) in it states: “If a building includes a dam,—(a) the regional authority is responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the dam; and (b) the building consent authority and territorial authority are responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the parts of the building that are not a dam.” When is a dam not a dam? When it is in a damned bill like this, I guess! We visited a dam on the Waitaki River. What was in place there—the emergency procedures, and the monitoring of construction and of safety aspects of the dam—required expertise that far outweighed anything that any regional council or local territorial authority would have. Those councils do not have the expertise, but the people working on that dam do. Their stringent safety precautions, the functions and policies they have in place, would far outweigh any expertise that any regional council would have. So one would have to question why that sort of provision is included in the Supplementary Order Paper. National members are very clear in our minds that these things were tidied up at the time.

Clause 3L on the same Supplementary Order Paper repeals and replaces section 116B of the principal Act. This is the point that my colleague Dr Nick Smith has been talking about specifically. Subsection (1) makes it an offence to use a building “for a use for which the building is not safe or not sanitary;”, or if it has “inadequate means of escape from fire.” Subsection (3) creates a penalty: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.” Who has the sort of money in their pockets to be able to pay the exorbitant fines that this bill envisages? The select committee heard from the Far North District Council that a lot of the houses in its region do not meet codes of compliance. The figure escapes me, but there are thousands of properties that should not be occupied because they do not meet codes of compliance. Will we pull the plug on those property owners? Will we say that they should not be living in their houses because they do not meet a code of compliance?

Those houses probably do not even have consents. That is the issue, as we said earlier on in this debate. There will be a move from do-it-yourself operators not to go through the stringent provisions that the current Act allows, and they will bypass the system. In fact, there is an article in the National Business Review—

Darren Hughes: A fine paper.

LINDSAY TISCH: It has a very fine member’s photo in it, as well. This issue is dated 16 July 2004. The point I made in this article is that the Government was putting another nail in home improvement. That is what it says, and that is exactly the sort of issue—

Darren Hughes: Good publicity.

LINDSAY TISCH: While the member carries on, he should know that this is a serious issue. I suggest he takes a call to crystallise and articulate the Government’s position, because at the moment this legislation is a sham. It is a complete and utter waste of time. The point is that if the Government had got the legislation right in the first place, we would not be back here now under urgency trying to sort out the issue. It is so important, in National’s view, that the legislation should be back before the select committee, to let the people who will be affected by the legislation have a say.

I have another article, entitled “The Building Bill”. It also has photos of members. The point was made in it very clearly that as New Zealanders we pride ourselves on our practical ability to do our own thing. We have that mentality. We can knock down a wall, tile a bathroom, strip a door, build a deck—no worries. But this legislation means that those provisions will be taken away. This Supplementary Order Paper goes over the top in trying to correct some mistakes that have been made.

As Dr Smith has said, the provisions in the Act in its current form are not being carried through. Clause 3T substitutes section 363 of the principal Act with several new sections. This matter has been talked about in previous debates. The new section 363 is about “Protecting safety of members of public using premises open to public or intended for public use”. Dr Smith has said that if the law as it is written were being carried out, we should not be using the Beehive because of the construction work that is going on at this time. So there is abuse of the system, and that makes a mockery of the Act, which we spent time on. National members articulated those issues at the time. Now a bill has come in under urgency, 12 days after the principal Act was enacted, to try to correct these issues.

Well, our position is very clear. We are opposing this bill. If Government members think the issue is so important that we need to look at it more closely, why is there not a separate bill? Why do we not have a Building Amendment Bill to tidy it up? This bill is the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It is a means to slip through the back door a Supplementary Order Paper to tidy up the mess of the Building Act, and that should not be happening. If these issues are so important, why is there not an amendment to the Building Act, which was passed last year?

If we take it further than that, we see the disarray that this Government is in. Over the last 5 years seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry.

Hon Ken Shirley: Seven?

LINDSAY TISCH: That is right; seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry. Where is the continuity? Where is the focus when there are different people in charge who do not understand the industry, who have no idea what it is about, and who have never been at the coalface?

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : This legislation has got the building industry up in arms; it is very concerned about it. I was speaking to members of the industry last night, because I had some concerns about the speed with which this legislation came in. They have already spotted errors and problems, and so have we. I ask the Committee to consider new clause 3P, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361, which amends section 241 of the Building Act. There are numbers missing. Obviously it was rushed in so quickly that it is all out of order. There are things in the wrong place and there are numbers missing. Even new clause 5A, amending section 438 of the Act, has a number in the wrong place and a number missing. I quickly went through the Supplementary Order Paper and found that paragraphs have been missed out. New clause 3M has paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (i) in new section 165(1). What happened to paragraphs (f) and (g)? Obviously something has been taken out, but nobody went through and checked it. The problem is that this legislation is being rushed through so quickly that errors are appearing again.

New Zealand First believes that this legislation is needed, but that we must get it right. The bill had to come before us because there were errors in the Act. The problems have carried on, and all of a sudden we are rushing the Supplementary Order Paper through, in urgency, in order to correct errors, including some major ones under section 363 of the Act, that have created all sorts of problems in the industry. This Supplementary Order Paper will solve some of them, but it will not solve them all. In fact, it will create more problems, because there will be confusion over the order of things. There are provisions missing and out of place. I ask the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, why we did not put the Supplementary Order Paper before a select committee. If it had gone before a select committee, those issues would have been picked up by the members of the select committee and by the industry. They would have had a chance to take a closer look at the final product.

This document, in its final form, has not been put out to the industry. Yes, a discussion document went out, but a final draft document has not been out to the industry so that it could have a close look at it. People in the industry will spot holes in this legislation in all sorts of directions, and I am afraid that they have already spotted some. The industry has already expressed some concerns to me, and I would like to raise them later on. However, at this point in time I ask why the bill was not put out to a select committee. The select committee process is one where problems can be discovered and sorted out. Let us face it, we had to introduce this legislation to correct section 409 in the Act, because that section created a problem with regard to copyright. Now we are rushing another piece of legislation through the House, a Supplementary Order Paper, because there are so many errors in the Act. It is silly to put this legislation through in such urgency. The Supplementary Order Paper is quite an extensive document. It has a lot of implications, and if we do not get it right that will create many more problems.

I turn to new clause 3R, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361, which repeals sections 273(1)(b), 274(a)(ii), and 402(1)(t)(ii) of the principal Act. The question I have about this provision is to do with the register of building consent authorities. How on earth does the chief executive keep track of those authorities when a territorial authority has passed on its information, or transferred its functions, duties, or powers, to another territorial authority? He or she will have no idea about that until such time as errors start to appear and something starts to break down. I ask why the register of those territorial authority functions is not being kept by the chief executive. The chief executive does not have that record, so he or she will not know whom to go to when he or she has a problem. The chief executive will have to go chasing around and asking people left, right, and centre in order to find out who has that information and who has been responsible for the duties that were passed on or transferred by the other territorial authority.

To give members an example of how ridiculous the explanation of that measure is, I tell them that it refers to doing away with the registers of all consent authorities. That includes any private consent authorities, although I do not think there are very many of those left, because the Act makes it virtually impossible for private certifiers to be in existence. The whole thing was so rushed that the Government did not realise it had put in a provision that would do away with the registers for all the building consent authorities. That is just one example of the errors in this legislation. I am sorry to come down so hard on the officials who were put under pressure to come up with this legislation at such short notice. But let us face it, the first phase of the Act came into existence on 30 November 2004. Another very large segment of it came into existence on 31 March this year. From those dates a lot of these errors were known about; a lot of these things were discovered right in the very first stage. Why did it take so long for them to be actioned? It was simply because the Government was hoping the problems would not happen.

I am afraid the biggest example of that is in sections 362 and 363 of the Act, where, if territorial authorities—and I can give examples from Wellington and Auckland—were to follow the literal interpretation of the Act, we would have had to evacuate this building. The territorial authorities have been put in a very awkward situation. They could have set a precedent by ignoring the situation and saying that they would not take any action because everything was OK. But that would set a precedent, and everybody would expect to have the same treatment. That is why the Government suddenly thought it had better get into action and do something about the situation, and by rushing this legislation through it has put the officials under enormous pressure. They have come up with a lot of very good amendments, but there are still some errors in it.

New Zealand First says that the Supplementary Order Paper should be put to a select committee so that it can be sorted out in a proper fashion, with all the issues brought up and discussed with the industry. The building industry really wants the issues to be sorted out. It wants to have certainty in the industry, and it wants to make sure that everything is correct. When I see the number of errors that have occurred in this legislation already, I am afraid that we will just be back in this Chamber again in the not too distant future, to debate more of these issues and try to correct the errors we are about to inflict on the industry yet again. New Zealand First is not supportive of the process regarding this bill, because of its rushed nature—pushing the legislation through in urgency—and because of the errors that are occurring. I will take another call later on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised by the industry already.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I have a lot of sympathy for the last two speakers, and I think that Brent Catchpole has probably enunciated the dilemma that exists with regard to these amendments fairly well. The difference between New Zealand First and United Future is that we have accepted that the changes that need to be made to the Building Act ought to come into force as quickly as possible. Given that the substantive part of the Act came into force on 31 March, there is a degree of urgency in correcting the problems that have been diagnosed, so that the industry knows where it stands and the ambiguities and confusions in the Act are dealt with. That means, unfortunately, that this bill needs to be rushed through in urgency and that it will not get the due consideration a select committee would give it. Quite simply, the time delay in getting the legislation to a select committee in order for it to consider the bill thoroughly, get submissions in and hear them, and then pass it, would only exacerbate the problems. From United Future’s point of view, we have had some opportunity to look at this legislation over the last few days. We have made suggestions that have been adopted, because changes needed to be made in order to improve the legislation and to correct further ambiguities or errors in it. I am grateful for the Government’s willingness to listen to that.

There is a maxim that rushed legislation is bad legislation. I think we suffer when we rush things through and then find that we have to revisit them later on, because we have not got them right or have made errors. I draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that I have placed on the Table. It demonstrates the problems there have been in terms of rushing the legislation in. It relates to new section 116B, inserted by clause 3L of Supplementary Order Paper 361, regarding the use of a building or the giving of permission to use a building that is not safe or sanitary, or that has inadequate means of escape from fire. That is a new offence. It has arisen because of situations whereby landlords have allowed people to use buildings for, say, residential occupation, when the buildings were not in a condition to be used for that purpose. There was a recent example of that when a fire nearly resulted in the loss of life. It is important that there be a criminal sanction against people who allow buildings to be used for residential use, in particular, when they do not have sufficient means of escape from fire or are not safe and sanitary. That is what new section 116B is intended to provide.

However, my concern, on looking at the wording of the provision—it states that no person may use a building or permit another person to use a building—is that the courts could well interpret “permit” in a fairly loose way. Even the fact that a building has been used could be enough for the courts to say that a person had permitted it to be used. The fact that a landlord may not have known what a building was being used for, or may not have known it was being misused—for example, if there were squatters in it—could leave the landlord liable. I was particularly fearful that a court could take that broad sort of approach on the basis that every other offence in the Act is a strict liability offence. Those offences are clearly cut and dried—one either has a building permit or has not, either has a code of compliance certificate or has not, and so on. Those matters are very much in the hands of the landlord. But there could be a situation whereby a landlord, with no knowledge of the misuse of a building and no intention to misuse it, had squatters. If there was a fire and loss of life, it seems to me that the heavy penalties a building owner would face under the provision are such that there ought to be an element of what is called mens rea in legal language—some mental knowledge or awareness of what was happening.

I have an amendment on the Table that would change the words: “(a) use a building, or permit another person to use a building,” to “… knowingly permit …”, just to make it quite clear, if somebody were charged with that offence, that effectively that element of knowledge would be necessary. I discussed that with the Government yesterday morning when we were signing this legislation off. The Government had agreed to put that provision in, but it had not quite made it to the drafting stage. I am pleased that the Government will support that change in order to make the situation quite clear. That is an example, again, of something that we may well have had to readdress in the future after a luckless landlord had been caught because of the strict interpretation that had been provided.

One concern that I raised with officials is yet to be attended to. Because it has not been attended to, I am giving some warning of a concern that could arise through a difference between sections 49 and 53 of the Act. The intention of those provisions is for a building levy not to be paid until after a building consent has been granted, but to be paid before the building consent is issued. The difficulty is that section 53 has been amended to clarify that the levy is payable once the consent has been granted. However, section 49 has not been changed. Section 49(2) states that a building consent authority is not required to grant a building consent until it receives the levy. That means a local authority could say that it wants the money upfront and will then grant the consent, which is not what is intended—certainly not what is intended by section 53. We still have a little bit of an ambiguity there. We will have to wait and see whether, in practice, that turns out to be a real issue in terms of the way that local authorities deal with it. It may well be that they take the two sections together and recognise that they should grant consent before they collect the levy. In fact, that would seem to me to be practical. Local authorities do not really want to collect money at the same time that applications go in and then be faced with the situation of having to refund it again if the application is not granted, or of having to collect more money or to refund part of it if the application is changed so that the amount of levy to be paid alters. It seems to me that it is probably more practical from their point of view to grant consent before collecting the levy. That is another example of the teething problems we get with complex legislation like this.

It is a pity, given that the Act was passed 8 months ago, that some of the issues were not picked up early enough to allow them to go through a select committee process, in order for us to look at them more thoroughly and get views on them before the Act was implemented. Some of the issues in section 363, inserted by clause 3T of the bill, that have been referred to seemed to arise only once the Act started to come into force. It is, I suppose, a fact of life in New Zealand that very often legislation is put in place, but it is only once the rubber hits the road and we get to a position whereby somebody has to implement it—that is, the date it comes into force—that suddenly people realise there are some holes in terms of the way it should be implemented and, in particular, some ambiguity. People find out about that only at the time of implementation. Maybe that is really part of the justification for the Government’s urgency on this legislation. Effectively, some of these issues have only recently come to light. That is not something I am overly privy to, but I can imagine that that is a problem. Mr Catchpole, as well as me, has alluded to that as being a possible explanation for the urgency on this legislation.

There are some other provisions in this legislation. Most of the provisions, as I have previously said, are really matters of technical change and clarification. For example, the issue of cable cars was one whereby, under the provisions of the Act as it stood, if a single resident had a cable car, he or she had to get a compliance schedule. That was intended to be a compliance schedule for the cable car, but the way the provision was written meant a resident with a cable car would have then had to get a compliance schedule for everything in his or her house, when other residents did not have to get compliance schedules. There has been a clarification of that requirement, in that a single resident who has a cable car will have to get a compliance schedule only in regard to the cable car. That, of course, is what was intended. Those sorts of minor changes have been necessary to avoid hardship—in that case, to single residential owners—so that people would not be faced with the draconian problems that would arise through the unintended consequences of provisions in the Act.

I note also that there has been a change to the carrying out of restricted work, to make it clear that it is quite in order for somebody who is not a licensed building practitioner to carry out restricted work, as long as that work is supervised. The Act made it an offence for someone to carry out restricted work without being licensed, and it was not made clear that the supervision of restricted work by a person who is a licensed building practitioner is OK. That matter has been clarified in new clause 3G, and as well there is clarification of an issue regarding design work in new clause 3A. There was a need to clarify that not all design work will need a building permit. Somebody picked up on an ambiguity, whether real or imaginary, by suggesting that anybody who carried out any design work first had to get a building permit. Some design work will come within the definition, but that will be done by Order in Council. That is another important change.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) : I would like to thank the United Future member Murray Smith for his very helpful contribution in the last 10 minutes, and also acknowledge the very helpful contributions that United Future has made in the process of dealing with some mistakes that were made in this bill. We have seen a lot of crocodile tears cried over the need to change legislation. It has been curious to hear members—in particular, Nick Smith and Ken Shirley yesterday—carrying on and saying what a muck-up this bill has been. Of course, there were some mistakes, but I remind members that the Resource Management Act, passed by National in the early 1990s, has been changed 13 times. The Companies Act, also passed by National, has been changed numerous times. It happens with complex legislation that is being put into practice. It has to be adjusted to the realities of how things work.

This legislation to be amended, passed not so long ago, has over 450 clauses and has a lot of practical effect on the building industry. In fact, there were only two significant problems. The first is the copyright issue, in section 410, which United Future has been extremely helpful in working through—and New Zealand First for that matter. The second is safety in a public building where construction is taking place in part of it, in section 363. There has been a lot of legal debate about whether there was even really a problem there, but I accept that greater guidance needed to be given. We had some silly comments made by Nick Smith saying that Parliament needed to be closed down because the Beehive was having renovations. Curiously, the Wellington City Council, the territorial authority that makes that decision, said immediately that no such consideration was ever going to be given, that there was no problem. But, of course, Nick Smith has continued to put out press releases claiming all sorts of nonsense about it.

I want to comment on a few things that Murray Smith raised. He said he felt there was a contradiction between clauses 49 and 53. We have had legal advice from the department and there does not seem to be a problem, but we will talk through that issue with the member. We do not think there is a problem. He has put forward an amendment to new clause 3L to insert the word “knowingly”. That gives greater clarity for landlords, as the member explained in his presentation. I thank him for that contribution and we will certainly agree to that.

We are here fixing up a bit of practical legislation. I am pleased we are able to do that. As I said, there are only two significant problems, and one of them we do not even think is a problem, but we will just make sure that everyone is clear about that. We have an opportunity to go through a complex, large piece of legislation and fix up all those little things that inevitably happen when one is drawing up a big document—such as grammatical errors; numbering problems, which Dr Nick Smith spent an extraordinary amount of time talking about yesterday; and all those practical little things that happen inevitably in big drafting issues. We have that chance today. We are taking advantage of it. I am pleased and believe we will have better legislation at the end of this process.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I think the Committee and the country should be deeply alarmed by the comments we have just heard from the Minister. He is trying to sweep this major problem, this very complex legislation, under the carpet by saying that this is just about little wee things, such as numerical problems and grammatical errors. I tell the Minister that that is why legislation should go to a select committee. That is why this Parliament, before it rushes in to pass laws, calls for public submissions to hear what people out in the community with experience, such as he has not got, might think about it. But no, he is captured by his officials. He rushes to the Parliament with this legislation, under urgency, and rams it through. All he is doing is putting a sticking-plaster on a weeping sore, because the situation is this: this Building Act was passed some 8 months ago; part of it became operative on 30 November last year; another significant part became operative on 31 March this year. That is just 13 days ago! Yet here we have another amending piece of legislation 13 days later.

But here is the real catch: a Supplementary Order Paper has been cobbled together and it is 10 times the size of the amending bill, but none of it is going to a select committee. That is arrogantly bypassing the proper processes of passing legislation. This Minister knows it. It is a disgrace, and he tries to sweep it under the carpet, as error after error is exposed here in the Committee. He has entered into a sort of back-scratching exercise, a mutual admiration society; with the doormat party United Future.

I shall comment on the speech made by Murray Smith from United Future, prior to the Minister’s speech. He was proudly claiming credit—it was sort of the great achievement of United Future, yet he shot himself down with his own words. I do not know whether any members have picked up off the table his amendment in hastily scrawled handwriting. Here he is in the Committee talking about legislation that is not going to a select committee, making further amendments to legislation that he is proudly claiming he has had all this great input into. In other words, he is acknowledging he has not got it right, and it is legislation on the hoof.

It is a very bad process and we are seeing far too much of that practice under this Government. It is panic legislation. It is a knee-jerk reaction, and the building laws of this country are far too important to be fiddling with and changing on the hoof in the way this is being done.

This Government has made an absolute mess of the building laws. On the one hand it has totally removed the longstanding tradition of the Kiwi do-it-yourselfer, who is totally driven out of the industry, and Government members might well say that the building industry supports that. Well, of course they do! Has the Government not heard of restrictive trade practice? All employment groups love banning the do-it-yourselfer, because then they get more work. Instead we have this great layer of registration upon registration. I know a lot of Kiwis who are quite competent in this work. I actually built my first house. I lived in it before it was completed. There were no problems. It is still standing, does not leak, and that was over 30 years ago.

Brent Catchpole: A good tent!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: A very good house it was, I might add. That is the point. That has all ended now. No one can do any work within the structural envelope of the building. It is a nonsense. For the Minister to try to sweep under the carpet the fiasco we had in the clause that clearly stated—he might try to argue that it was ambiguous, but it was very clear—that someone cannot occupy any part of a public building that is subject to works, whether or not they are maintenance, restorative, or whatever, is a nonsense. It was very clear, and the Minister tries to say: “No, no, the city council was prepared to go along with that.” Well, I say: “Shame on the city council!” That is the problem with so many of our laws. We are not properly enforcing the many laws that we have passed, and at the same time we try to bring in layers and layers of more restrictive and prescriptive laws. This is bad legislation, and I urge the Parliament not to pass it.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification on the vote on Part 1. Can you please tell me what the vote on that part was?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices.

LINDSAY TISCH: I seek leave of the Committee to put that vote again, because National wants to record a vote against.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The Clerk will conduct a party vote on Part 1 as amended.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If National just wants to change its vote, the other parties do not need to vote again, do they?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): My understanding is that Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices and therefore that we need to conduct a full vote.

Part 1Amendments to Building Act 2004 (recommitted)

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I need to clarify a vote, because the Clerk at the Table is not sure whether the vote was heard correctly. It is the vote on the Minister’s amendment to Part 3. I ask the Green Party to be so good as to repeat their votes on Part 3.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : We are for the Minister’s amendment and opposed to the part.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues), on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill, .

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Under the Sale of Liquor Act, licensing trust members are generally elected by their local communities. Some gaming-machine societies that operate their gaming machines on licensed trust premises have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to have input into their decisions. The Gambling Act prohibits that type of arrangement. It does this by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the machines on those premises.

The bill exempts licensing trust members from this requirement, to reflect their unique position as elected members. The exemption also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act.

The bill was introduced on 30 November 2004. It had its first reading on 14 December and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I thank members on that committee for considering this bill within a short time frame. The committee considered 14 submissions, of which seven were supported by oral evidence. It reported the bill back to the House on 21 February and did not propose any substantive amendments.

The committee in its commentary made particular note of the local knowledge and accountability of licensing trust members, and the substantial contribution they make to the well-being of their local communities. The committee also noted that members cannot benefit financially from the trust. For those reasons, the potential for conflict of interest that the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act are designed to prevent is much lower in the case of licensing trust members than for other people with a role in running commercial premises.

I commend this bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : The genesis of this bill goes back to some time ago, when the Government realised it had made a mistake—another mistake. We have just heard in earlier debates about how this Government is prone to making mistakes. At the eleventh hour the Government wanted to bring in in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the provision we are now talking about. National opposed that. We said that this was important legislation. This matter should have been corrected during the debate on the Gambling Bill in 2003. It was not, therefore there needs to be an amendment to the Gambling Act specifically so those organisations affected by the key persons provision have the opportunity to have a say. Otherwise, that opportunity would have been limited.

In respect of the current provision in the Act, I have a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs dated 19 December, which went out to the trusts, stating that it had great difficulty when wanting to make any changes. It stated that section 113(1)(b) of the Gambling Act prohibits a key person in relation to a venue from being involved in decisions about grants or in the management or distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That is what the department said at the time. It went on to state that there could be a conflict of interest, and then suggested that one could get around that by having a new, independent community society.

We must remember that prior to 1 July 2004—that was the operative date—elected members of licensing trusts were able to distribute the proceeds. It was only from 1 July last year that suddenly they were not able to be involved in the distribution of grants from their machines. The Department of Internal Affairs’ position at the time was that it could fix that, but that the community would have to set up new, independent community societies. That was a way around it. It stated: “It is open to the community in which a licensing trust operates to establish a trust to apply for a licence to operate gaming machines and to distribute the proceeds from those machines for authorised purposes within the community.”

So there is conflict between the advice the Department of Internal Affairs is giving, and the Government’s measure. It says that cannot be done, but under the Official Information Act I got all these papers—because they are considerable—about the arguments relating to the provision about the key persons. On one hand the Government has realised it has made a mistake—a big mistake, in fact—and on the other hand, its advisers through the Department of Internal Affairs are suggesting another means by which it could be remedied; that is, that by setting up a separate, independent operation.

National does not subscribe to that. We believe elected members of the trusts are clearly elected from the community and they should not be disqualified by that. They hold both these positions, they have an interest in the licensing trust as an outlet, and they should be involved also in what goes on. They clearly have no financial or proprietary interest in the operations of a licensing trust, so why should they not be involved in the distribution of those funds to the community? I have a list of licensing trusts, and it is quite interesting to see that they are throughout the country. Northern Trusts Ltd, which includes the Mt Wellington, Ōtara, and Papatoetoe licensing trusts. There is the Invercargill Licensing Trust Charitable Trust. We have the Trust House Charitable Trust, which includes Masterton, Rimutaka, and Flaxmere licensing trusts—

Georgina Beyer: Hear, hear!

LINDSAY TISCH: —the member from those areas has acknowledged that. We have the Ashburton Trust Charitable Foundation; West Auckland Trust Services Ltd, which includes the Portage Licensing Trust and Waitakere Licensing Trust; Mana Community Grants Foundation, which is the Porirua Licensing Trust; and then we have the Trust Charitable Foundation, which covers both the North and South Islands, including the licensing trusts at Cheviot, Clutha, Geraldine, Johnsonville, Mataura, Oamaru, Papatoetoe, Portage, Te Kauwhata, and Waitakere. So there is a wide spread of interests throughout the community.

Our position is quite clear: those people who are elected are elected by the community; they should have an opportunity to be part of that. One must realise that licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming-machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate the machines in those premises. So it is not an argument about whether we agree at all with liquor licensing trusts and whether we should have them. They exist, and we want to make sure they have the ability to perform their functions. Many charitable societies have allowed, and want to continue to allow, the elected licensing trust members to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming-machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier, this was the position prior to 1 July 2004 and it is only since this Act came into being that that provision has been taken away.

National is very happy that this bill has come forward in this form as a Gambling Amendment Bill, not as a Statutes Amendment Bill, because it is worthy of further debate. We are particularly interested that this be progressed now, so that those people elected to licensing trusts throughout the country, who do a good job, and put back into the community the profits from the proceeds of gaming machines—about $25 million—should be able to exercise their best judgment and be part of the distributions committee.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) : I thank the previous speaker for his cooperation both in the Government Administration Committee and in the House on the Gambling Amendment Bill, which is designed to allow elected members of licensing trusts and community trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to that community. The main concerns of the committee were that the distribution of the proceeds should be transparent and that there should be accountability from the elected members, and we were assured of that.

One organisation the committee was particularly impressed with was West Auckland Trust Services, which presented us with its method of distribution and showed us that it also polled its community as to the community’s priorities in terms of where those funds should be distributed. We thought that was an excellent example to other trusts to poll their community as to whether they wanted the funding to be distributed to education, arts, sports, and so on. The West Auckland Trust Services distribution chart was based on its polling, which we thought was a very good example to other elected trusts in this regard. I wish to support this bill and look forward to its continued progress through the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I was fascinated by the brevity of the speech made by the Minister who moved the second reading today, because it brought to mind a recent announcement made by this Government about spending well over $40 million on problem gamblers. It was a press statement put out by one Damien O’Conner where he claimed, alongside his bureaucrats, that this bill was a world first. Well, I remind the House and the country just who it was that brought the problem of gambling into stark reality for New Zealand, and what we are dealing with now. Because all around this country we have huge problems with gambling, particularly in the Māori community, particularly in the Asian community, and amongst people who can least afford it, with disastrous results.

New Zealand First did not support the Gambling Act of 2003, which was an attempt by this Government, as John Tamihere would say, with its bureaucrats working night and day, with nothing else to do—no soccer on Saturday to watch, or Sundays to spend with families—to ensure that the profits from gambling went out of local communities and straight into some centralised bureaucratic disbursement regime—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, they did, and that is why every hotel around New Zealand opposed that legislation. The Labour Party can make these sorts of grand promises that it is dealing—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. This bill actually improves upon that, and that is why we are supporting it. But it simply is the case of ignoring some of the realities.

What we have in New Zealand today of course is that the people who are bleeding with the gambling problems are spending money in localities where even the profits from gambling do not go towards the community in which they live. That is a fact. Damien O’Connor can shake his head, but the reality is that the Government decided to take full control off the local distribution agencies, and claim that the local people could not be trusted and central government could. That is as blunt as it got.

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, the Government did. More seriously though, we got this: a disastrous failure to acknowledge what a disaster so much gambling is in this country. Then to claim a “world first” as some sort of innovative enlightened Government is the worst and what one might call the “H” offence. I cannot use the word, but members will know what I mean. It is the very worst.

New Zealand First has always been opposed to this, and we want to remind New Zealanders who it was that changed the gambling society of this country—for the very worst. Can the House remember one Peter Tapsell when he was Minister? He brought in casino licensing in this country, and then, of course, against huge objections all around New Zealand, the Government imposed it upon Queenstown—

David Parker: Twice!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —twice upon Queenstown—and then upon the people of Hamilton, even though the mass majority of the local people were against it. The Government ignored all that. I remind the National Party that it was as responsible for that as well, because it had members on that authority, one of whom was challenged as to his behaviour—a former member of Parliament, whose name I should not mention because it is just part of the sad history of the National Party.

David Parker: Judith Collins was the chair, too.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. That is a fact. But how quickly they forget! Well, New Zealand First wants to say that at least this bill gives back some local control, but it does not address the serious problem that should be addressed in this legislation as to what we are going to do with a society that Labour turned upside down, and a society in which the very roots of that society that claimed once to be Labour supporters, and that Labour once claimed to represent, have been significantly—in the case of so many families and individuals—destroyed. I want to know which Minister opposite will get up and start talking about that as a key issue, and do something about it.

It is very, very serious that we have in New Zealand today certain families whose lives have been destroyed—not just limited. [Interruption] My colleague Brian Donnelly tells me that in the early days of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government we brought down a moratorium on new casinos, so the issue could be resolved. That is what I call a responsible party. That is what I call an enlightened party that acknowledges the difficulties, and, unlike those who signed one and a half pages of “motherhood and apple pie” by way of an agreement, we demanded things and got them done.

Darren Hughes: Mrs Shipley claimed credit for it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that Mrs Shipley—

Hon Brian Donnelly: Jack Elder put it through.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Jack Elder put it through as a Minister for New Zealand First, and Mrs Shipley made many claims. That is why she is not here any more. She was of the reasons why the National Party is in the parlous state it is today, and why, after her little stint as Prime Minister, she took the National Party to the worst vote it ever had, since 1936 and its formation.

But Labour is no different. The Labour Party and the National Party are no different on this issue. They believe in all sorts of gambling. Why, they would have people betting on two flies going up a wall, if they could. If that could be organised, and they could get a tax cut and start getting their hands on the disbursement of the money and paying it out to all their pet little causes, they would.

Dianne Yates: No, we can’t do that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell that member from Hamilton that all sorts of things are being done in the name of the gambling industry today. All sorts of favourite projects are being funded—some of the most weird we would ever see—whilst people out there, the families and kids, are starving and going bankrupt because of problem gambling, encouraged by this administration.

So how about the next Labour speaker getting up and acknowledging that, because I know there are Māori members over there who know what I am talking about. They know what an abject disaster the industry is for Māoridom, and the sooner we do something about that the better.

Dianne Yates: I opposed the casino.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member said she opposed the casino but how worthy is that, when she supported the casino legislation? She is a member whose left hand does not know what her right hand is doing. She could not wait to line up and stand for the Labour Party that brought casino legislation into this country. That legislation is working like a giant vacuum, just sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Auckland, killing the culture, killing the society, and killing all sorts of leisure activities.

Government Member: No, it’s not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it is. If we asked any restaurateur or bar owner in Auckland about what is happening to the leisure dollar, he or she would tell us that the casino has had a profound effect. Is the money being spent in New Zealand? No. All the profits are being siphoned off overseas, in the case of Auckland—and somehow the Labour Party thinks that is good. But then again, for people who have sold $10 billion worth of State assets, anything would be a worthy prescription for their behaviour.

Anyway, I was listening to this debate and thought I should come down to the House to remind a few people about who is guilty, about who did what, and about where and when. One party in this country is opposed to this sort of gambling, because it is without merit, without employment, and without culture. It is the most base thing for somebody walking into a casino to say: “Here’s all my money. I hope I get a little bit back.” What industry in the whole world do members know of where people can walk into an establishment and say: “Here’s all my hard-earned savings. Whether or not my wife and kids can afford it, I don’t care. But, just in case, I would like to know whether I can win a little bit back.”

Dianne Yates: What about the horses?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do not talk about the horses. I will tell the member about the horses. The horses could be one of New Zealand’s most explosive export industries. The horse industry employs 32,000 people in real jobs.

Dianne Yates: What about the TAB?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The TAB is part of the horse industry. At least there is employment. At least there are exports. At least there is an international reputation. That industry does have some redeeming features, but the industry that the member supports, and that the Government is so pleased to support, is in every way thoroughly bad for New Zealand.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : Now that that member has resumed his seat, the pigs can stop flying. He does not seem to be able to control his own shadow, as far as I can see. The simple fact of the matter is that gambling problems are something that we ought to be seriously concerned about. But this legislation does not deal with that, at all. The point to make with gambling problems is that a lot has to be taken on board as personal responsibility. In my opinion, nobody has ever had a gun held to his head and been forced to go into a casino and put money into a slot machine.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is the “Family Party” speaking.

MARC ALEXANDER: The “Family Party” actually wants choice. We want people to be able to decide for themselves what to do, and we want less Government intervention. But that member from the “Winston Party” obviously wants to have more Government intervention in people’s lives and more restrictions placed on individuals, and I think that is unconscionable. What did he do when we was in Government, other than melt down the National Party to the point where it cannot even get back into the race for the next election? It is crazy. The kiss of death is what the “Winston Party” is all about.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts, who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust is reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act, from the definition of “key person” in the Gambling Act in relation to a class 4 venue. The amendment has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the Gambling Act that require the separation of functions, and it will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds.

Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Many of these societies allow, or have allowed, licensing trust members to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. This was permitted under previous gambling legislation. The Gambling Act prevents this type of arrangement by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the gaming machines at those venues. The separation of functions is designed to reduce the potential for conflict of interest. As licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust, the risk of conflict of interest is considerably lower.

Out of the Government Administration Committee came only one minor recommendation—that is, to clarify that the definition of “key person” includes trustees of a community trust who hold office under section 219Q of the Sale of Liquor Act. This is eminently sensible, and it is something that United Future will absolutely support. One thing that I would mention, however, is that, again, the previous speaker was utterly wrong, because the Gambling Act specifically avoided centralisation of the proceeds from gambling. He was simply wrong. But that is what we expect from the “Winston Party”, I suppose, despite the fact that its members might vote for other than what they talk about. Nevertheless, United Future will support this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt this member’s speech—the sooner he gets it over with, the better—but the real fact is that he cannot talk about the “Winston Party”. We all know that the fastest rising party in this country is called New Zealand First, and it should be addressed properly by that name at all times—particularly by the “Poodle Party”.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Parties should be addressed by their correct name.

MARC ALEXANDER: Speaking to the point of order, I apologise if there was any confusion in calling New Zealand First the “Winston Party”, but in the minds of most the two are indistinguishable. I would just like to correct the member by saying that we are not the “Poodle Party”; we are in fact the guide dog of Parliament—the guide dog.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members that they should refer to parties by their proper names. Those two names should not be used.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) : I am taking over the debate on the Gambling Amendment Bill for two of my colleagues, especially Heather Roy, who has followed it all the way through and has provided quite a bit of cooperation with the Government on this. As she stated in her first reading contribution, the attempt was actually made to put it through as a statutory amendment.

Rod Donald: It should have been.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Maybe that is the case, but that would have been an abuse of the power of Statutes Amendment bills, which are meant for non-controversial issues. As we have already seen by the debate in the House, this is not a non-controversial issue. Mr Peters actually had a good point, when he asked—but did not answer—where else, other than gambling, can one say: “Here’s all my money. Take all my money and I’ll see what I get back from it.”

The other example of that happening is with this Government, in taxes. It takes more and more taxes from taxpayers every day. Every week new tax laws are passed, and what do they get back from them? What are schools getting back from taxes at the moment? Schools are getting less and less back in terms of what the parents of the children pay in taxes; it is going into bigger and bigger bureaucracies. Schools are seriously underfunded. Paying one’s taxes in New Zealand now is a huge gamble, because people never know what they will get back, or whether they will get any money back. One reason that most people pay their taxes and are happy to pay their taxes is for the investment in the education of the future citizens of this country, but that is just not happening.

I also agree with some of what Marc Alexander said. I do not deny that there is a huge problem with gambling in this country. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ word that it is a huge problem in the Māori communities, but there is an issue of personal responsibility here. People talk about gambling addiction. In what way is it a chemical that gets into one’s bloodstream, or one’s system, like drinking or smoking, or other drugs that become an addiction?

It is dangerous to blur the edges between addictions and problems. There are huge problems. There are families who go without because one or both parents are problem gamblers. But why does this happen when we see, in the paper, clients of casinos who are allowed to rack up huge debts, credit to the extent of—

Hon Member: $21 million.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I find that very difficult to believe. I would have absolutely no sympathy with gambling operators or the owners of gambling institutions if they lost every cent of that money, because they are clearly stupid in allowing someone to rack up a debt as high as that. No one would be able to go down to his or her local hardware shop and rack up such a high debt. Clearly, people have a problem with gambling if they run up a debt that is so high.

The other area Mr Peters touched upon concerns horses, and I totally agree with him on that. We had an internationally recognised, world-class industry in New Zealand with the breeding, training, and export of thoroughbred racehorses. It would be beneath the elite people in the Labour Party today to go down to somewhere like the Matamata training track before dawn, at 4 o’clock or even 2 o’clock in the morning, and to see what goes on there in terms of the huge amounts of money going into the local economy from horses. But what do breeders, trainers, and owners get from that? They get hit with more and more taxes. Industry charges, even accident compensation alone that some of them have to pay for taking on apprentice jockeys, along with all the associated costs and compliance costs that go with being a trainer in the industry these days, are greater than the income that people get back out of the industry. Why? Because no Government will ever equalise the taxes that are forced out of them on gambling issues.

I support this Gambling Amendment Bill. I notice that its first reading was done under urgency. That is because of poorly drafted legislation—legislation this Government rushed through because it overlooked the fact that there are honourable people who are members of and can run a licensing trust, and who can make decisions about where the proceeds from those gaming machines should go in the community. I find it highly ironic that this Government prides itself on supporting the arts and sport in New Zealand—but predominantly the arts—and that hardly a week goes by when we do not see another photo opportunity of the Prime Minister or her sidekick Judith Tizard being photographed at some arty-farty art opening, yet much of the proceeds from gaming machines goes into local community arts projects, whether at local theatres, exhibitions, or productions.

All MPs in this House would have had letter after letter, numerous letters, from those local arts communities, theatres, and repertory groups that feared they would be forced to close because of this Government’s move against the distribution of the proceeds of gambling within the community. What New Zealand First has accused this Government of is absolutely right. The Government is always trying to wrest control from communities back to Wellington, and to control them from Wellington. That is what this Government is all about, so why does it not just admit that that is what it is proud of being: essentially a controlling Government with no interest in communities?

It has no interest in communities being autonomous. Members can look at the way schools were closed down, or at the way the Government treats boards of trustees. Nobody is allowed to be autonomous. We can look at what the Government is doing to universities.

So ACT supports this amendment bill going through. It is a tragedy that the legislation has come back in this form, yet again in urgency, but we will vote for it.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) : I am delighted to support this Gambling Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party, and I am even delighted that the bill is being dealt with under urgency. We opposed the urgency motion, but this piece of legislation is one that does need to be dealt with promptly.

I cannot help but comment on the crocodile tears of the previous speaker, who is from ACT, because my recollection is that ACT was the only party to block this amendment being made by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. If ACT members had not been so bloody-minded last year, this legislative change could have already gone through. [Interruption] Did New Zealand First also block that?

Dail Jones: You did, too.

ROD DONALD: I do not think we did.

Dail Jones: You did. You said so on the first reading.

ROD DONALD: I doubt it, because the matter should have been dealt with. I will check the Hansard. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and that is certainly what I lobbied the Government to do, because there was a glaring mistake. The Act got it wrong in the first place. How can the principal gambling legislation give racing clubs and chartered clubs an exemption for key persons but not extend that provision to licensing trusts? That is exactly what this bill sets out to fix.

It is good that it is being done promptly, because, of all those organisations, licensing trusts actually have the most robust election processes. They are far more robust than chartered clubs or racing clubs, because licensing clubs have to conduct their elections under the Local Electoral Act every 3 years. There is a proper process they have to follow. It is a very open process, and every resident and those on the ratepayer roll in the territory of the licensing trust get to vote for the representatives on that trust. It would have become a ridiculous farce for the licensing trusts to have to set up parallel organisations to handle the distribution of profits from the trusts’ gaming activities. It is far better that one organisation addresses both the operation of the trusts and the distribution of the profits. I believe there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to make sure there is not a transfer of money from one part of a trust’s operation to another in order to subsidise internally those operations, so I do not see any difficulty with the same people running the operation and distributing the profits.

What I do see is the enormous benefit of those profits actually going back to the community, and the licensing trusts during their lobbying activities made the very good point that they have returned the highest percentage of gaming monies to the community in New Zealand. For example, in the 2003-04 year the Invercargill trust returned 57 percent compared with most other organisations returning under 40 percent. On behalf of the Green Party, I say we would much rather that the profits from activities such as gambling and liquor sales went to the community than lined the pockets of the shareholders of casinos or big booze companies.

Having said that, I would like to conclude with a personal note, which is that I have real difficulty with the invasive nature of gambling in our society. There are far too many pokie machines around the country. I make a personal point of not going on the premises of any casino for any purpose whatsoever, because I believe that casinos are a scourge on society no matter what money is funnelled back through various trusts and charities. But if pokie machines are going to exist, it is far better that they are under the control of a community trust or licensing trust, where there is some sense of obligation to take account of the wider concerns of the local community, rather than their being under the control of those totally motivated by profit.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I will take a brief call to say that when this matter was first discussed with New Zealand First and other parties in this House, the suggestion was made that the matter should be put in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). People were told that that would be quicker. New Zealand First had pressure put on it from licensing trusts that said every other party supported that action except for us. As we discovered during the course of discussions with the National Party and other parties, and during the course of the debate at the first reading, that particular line—that other political parties supported the legislation going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—was used with every political party. But it transpired that that was not the case, as National and other parties proved during the first reading debate.

In fact, if this legislation had gone into that Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), it would still not be getting passed today, because that bill is well down the Order Paper. So putting it as a separate bill has proved to be the best thing possible. I think that the stand taken by New Zealand First, National, and other parties to have this legislation as a separate bill works very much to the advantage of the Licensing Trusts Association. The attitude adopted by the trusts would have backfired on them if the legislation had been left in that Statutes Amendment Bill.

We all want to make sure that when money is raised by gambling in west Auckland, it can be spent in west Auckland, if it is raised in Ashburton, it can be spent in Ashburton, and that that can be done in a similar way right around the country in places where there are licensing trusts. The people of Invercargill would like their money spent in Southland—on Southland rugby, perhaps, rather than supporting, say, North Harbour, although North Harbour members would appreciate any extra funds that might be made available to the North Harbour Rugby Union, which has an unfortunate habit of losing players to South Island cities.

However, New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is short legislation that rectifies a mistake made by the Labour Government when it rushed through earlier gambling legislation under urgency. The Government Administration Committee has looked at this legislation closely, and has even made an amendment to it to take into account an error that cropped up. The amendment could not have been made if this were, for example, a statutes amendment bill, but it was able to be made by way of the Gambling Amendment Bill in order to help key operators.

I also make the point that the leader of New Zealand First considers the issue of gambling so important and so detrimental to family life that he has taken the trouble to come to the House to speak on the bill today. I see that no leader of any other political party in New Zealand is at all interested in the detrimental effect that gambling can have on family life. It goes to show that New Zealand First is very interested in what happens to struggling families, poorer families, Māori families, or any families in which people think that the answer to everything may be found in a pokie machine or in some other form of gambling. That is not the case. We consider gambling to be a very serious issue. I touched on it during the first reading, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has expressed that view on it much better than I ever could. New Zealand First supports this bill, which makes a minor change to the advantage of licensing trusts.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. The amendment also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act.

The Gambling Act prohibits licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. However, some gaming-machine societies that are not licensing trusts operate machines on licensing trust premises. The Act also imposes a strict separation between the people who run the commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and the people who control the proceeds from gaming machines at those premises. That currently prevents licensing trust members from having any input into decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds, and on the operation of gambling machines, when the societies concerned operate machines on licensing trust premises.

The bill exempts licensing trust members and community trustees from that separation of functions, in order to reflect their unique position as elected members who are accountable to their local communities. It continues to prohibit licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : National is happy to support this bill for the reasons I mentioned during the second reading debate. I will just summarise. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of “key persons”. This will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine profits. As I said earlier, that was the case prior to 1 July 2004, when the new legislation, the Gambling Act, came in. That involvement was stopped, so we now have the issue that we are trying to rectify.

I made the point, which was also made by New Zealand First, that we believed it was important that a separate amendment bill to the Gambling Act be invoked—which is what we are doing now—as opposed to including this provision in a Statutes Amendment Bill. So we are comfortable that there is no undue influence. A trustee would not receive any monetary gain by being involved in the process and being on the committee that would distribute gaming-machine proceeds. We understand that about $25 million goes back into the community from those licensing trusts, and we are happy to support this proposition.

• Bill read a third time.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Racing), on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, I would like to introduce this bill back into the House. This is a very important bill. Fiordland National Park, and Fiordland as an area, is an icon for this country. Many millions of people throughout the world know the sight of Mitre Peak from postcards, and this bill will go some way to protect that very iconic environment that the world enjoys. Through the tourism industry it is a very big part of New Zealand’s economy, and the people who live in and around that area, including some very good operators whom I had the pleasure to visit in Doubtful Sound, are passionate about its protection.

I commend the Minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House. I know that those people who have a genuine interest not only in conservation but also in economic development will support this bill and its speedy passage through the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We had a number of submissions to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. It was not a vast number, because it is a bill that addresses issues in a particular part of our country, although it is a part of our country that is significant to all of us—the Fiordland area. It is a beautiful area to visit. It is an area that all of us can rave about and promote as we travel around New Zealand and around the world. It is arguably one of the most scenic areas in New Zealand. Consequently, those who live in Fiordland and in that area of the South Island are very proud, very protective, and very supportive of both conserving and utilising that environment for all those who care to visit and, of course, to fish there, and of using its resources sustainably.

There were some disappointments during the select committee process. When the Fiordland Marine Management Bill came into the House, the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment—who have been working for well over a decade—had put together a package that suggested how best to manage this particular region. The Fiordland guardians were made up of people with a particular commitment to the environment, to the fishing industry, to recreational fishing, to tourism, and to the ecosystem generally.

They got together, as I say, over a decade ago to put together a package to present to the Government of the day on how the area should be managed. I have to report that they were somewhat disappointed to find that the bill that reached the House for the first reading and was before us at the select committee stage did not precisely reflect what they felt were the needs of Fiordland. It did not reflect precisely what they had put forward as the best way to manage this beautiful area.

One of the issues was, of course, management into the future, and the team that would oversee that. They were concerned that in the future the guardians would not be drawn from a local pool with local thinking—by those who are on the ground and at the coalface, who are out on the water in Fiordland on a daily or weekly basis. In fact, the bureaucracy was going to stack the guardians quite heavily with the Wellington brigade rather than utilise those who actually live in the region.

The group raised this concern with the select committee, and the committee acknowledged that the appointment process for the guardians should better reflect, not Wellington’s desires for this area, but the Fiordland community’s desires for this area. We were glad to see some changes made to that aspect of the legislation.

Another issue raised was that of access to the Fiordland area by not just water craft but also flight craft—that is, helicopters and aeroplanes. There was a concern about aeroplanes landing on the water in a marine reserve. Members can appreciate that aeroplanes fly into the area not only on scenic air tours but also occasionally need to land on the water to drop off recreationalists—although that is rare—for all sorts of other reasons. There was some contention over the issue of aeroplanes landing in a marine reserve area. The argument was put to us that if commercial or recreational boats are allowed to cross over a marine reserve—and members will know that boats are not banned from marine reserves; they might be banned from fishing in marine reserves, but they can motor over the water—surely aeroplanes should be able to land in those reserves as well.

That argument seemed sensible to us. There is no reason why aeroplanes should not be able to land in those areas. What is more, they should not be billed for doing so. If a craft makes some sort of commercial gain from dropping off divers who are pulling stocks out of the water—outside a marine reserve, of course—perhaps a concession should be paid by the operator. But if a craft is simply landing, spending half an hour on the water for some reason or another before taking off, and not disturbing the marine life at all, why should a concession be paid? The select committee basically smiled upon that argument and thought it was fair enough, so we saw some changes to that aspect of the bill come about as well.

Other issues were raised during the select committee stage. We decided not to take the time to travel down to Fiordland as a committee, although some individual members did go down there, and I am glad they did. We had select committee submissions in the South Island, but we never did a site visit as a committee. The major reasons for that were the cost and the time it would have taken to do so, and the fact that most submitters to the select committee—by far the majority—supported this bill in principle. The debate was around the details. We got a pretty good picture of what was happening down there, because there was so much agreement on this legislation, so we did not necessarily need to visit. But I do thank the chairman and Larry Baldock for taking the time to visit and reporting back to us. I acknowledge them for doing that.

On the whole, the National Party supports this legislation. We would like to acknowledge Bill English, who in the initial stages of its coming to the House took the case to the National Party caucus. He did so because he had been involved with the guardians of Fiordland for some time as a local electorate MP—and, as I say, the guardians have been going for well over a decade—so he knew the ins and outs of this legislation, knew the goals of the local people, and wanted to see the National Party support them in their endeavour to conserve parts of Fiordland while also seeing large parts of it continue to be utilised.

I thank him for reporting that to the caucus and for encouraging the caucus to support the legislation. We certainly agree with him. We are glad that the bill has been massaged by the select committee to make changes to better reflect the needs of the Fiordland guardians now and into the future, and we wish them the very best with this bill. I commend the bill to the House on behalf of the National Party. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but more particularly I thank Bill English for promoting this issue and for working hand in hand with the guardians through to today.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I want to thank my colleague Damien O’Connor for moving that the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be read a second time. This bill gives legislative effect to a strategy for the management of Fiordland’s marine development developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The bill as introduced was really a work of compromises among a number of Government departments, also trying to fit in the vision of the guardians. I am really pleased that during the committee process the balance was corrected more, again, in favour of the guardians’ original strategy.

It has been a very difficult job to do. The Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee received 21 submissions on the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the issues raised by submitters and for reporting back on the bill within such a short time frame. The committee reported to the House on 1 April, recommending by majority that the bill be passed with amendments. The proposed amendments will align the bill more closely with the vision and objectives of the guardians, and that is great.

In response to the submissions of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the committee recommends that the title of the bill be changed to “Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill”. Accordingly, the area that is subject to the bill becomes the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. The committee recommends that the purpose of the bill be amended to recognise the local importance of Fiordland and the area’s distinctive biological diversity. These changes address some of the concerns of the Fiordland guardians and of environmental groups about the purpose of the bill.

A key objective of the bill is to facilitate better integrated management of the Fiordland Marine Area. To strengthen the bill in this regard the committee recommends that a clause be included that “requires” the chief executives of the management agencies to enter into a protocol with the Fiordland marine guardians. They are really being lifted upwards in the air as regards official involvement. I envisage that, through the protocol, parties will make commitments on such issues as the exchange of information, and the resourcing of, and attendance at meetings, of the Fiordland marine guardians. With regard to the latter, the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee recommends that a clause is included in the bill that states that employees of management agencies may attend meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. Some submitters were concerned about the status of the advice provided by the Fiordland marine guardians, and the extent to which it could influence decision making. The committee therefore recommends that the requirement for Ministers and management agencies to “have regard” to any advice and recommendation of the guardians be changed to “take into account”, which is a higher legal obligation. I would have to say that I was extremely happy to accept this recommendation from the select committee. It was more in line with my original thoughts.

The committee received a number of submissions from environmental groups and individuals expressing concern that the area protected as marine reserve was insufficient and that it did not protect all ecosystem types. The select committee, in its commentary, has noted that the bill is not the final word on protection in the Fiordland Marine Area, but that it is a very good start. I endorse this. As a result of the bill the number of marine reserves nationally will increase from 18 to 26. This is a significant increase. The Government acknowledges that some gaps remain in terms of ecosystem protection. But I expect that this is a matter that the guardians will turn their minds to when the current management measures are reviewed 5 years from the commencement of the legislation.

The member from United Future, Larry Baldock, who sat on the select committee, has raised a number of issues with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, and with me, regarding the change to the bag limits for recreational fishers. He supports the bill, and the approach of the guardians, for which I am grateful, but he has requested that the ministerial advisory panel on recreational fishing, soon to be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries, consider the bag limits set in the guardians’ strategy, which are to be implemented by this bill and the regulations made under it. I have discussed this with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. He is happy for the advisory panel to consider the bag limits and to report to him, and any recommendations of that panel will be fully discussed with the guardians advisory committee.

While I accept this procedure of considering bag limits, I am mindful that the particular beauty of this process is that of the gifts and gains made by the different local groups, which included local recreational fishers, as they set up the strategy. This is the same situation when the ecological groups argue that this is not as tight, as they would say, in the ecosystems. This piece of work is truly local decision-making at its very best, with its inevitable compromises among parties.

The committee received submissions from Ngāi Tahu seeking an amendment to the provision in the bill relating to the take of pounamu within the marine reserves created by the bill. The bill exempts Ngāi Tahu from the need to obtain an access arrangement under the Crown Minerals Act for the taking of pounamu by hand within those marine reserves. Ngāi Tahu sought an extension of its exemption to allow it to remove discreet boulders by mechanical means. The committee considered that this was inappropriate, given that the purpose of the marine reserve is to maintain areas as close as possible to an actual state.

It was preferable that the removal of such boulders be dealt with on a case by case basis. This will enable access to be granted only where the effects on the marine reserve would be minor. However, the committee recognised that the current provisions in the bill were somewhat anomalous, and that the exception from the need for an access arrangement for hand-taking did not apply in parts of the Fiordland Marine Area outside the marine reserves. It also considered that outside of the marine reserves there would be no difficulty in applying an exemption relating to the mechanical removal of boulders.

Because of concerns that this was potentially outside the scope of the bill, the committee recommended that a Supplementary Order Paper be considered to provide for this. I subsequently arranged for further discussions with Ngāi Tahu on the proposed Supplementary Order Paper, and Ngāi Tahu noted that Fiordland is likely to have only a small amount of pounamu relative to other areas. Its preference was not to proceed with the Supplementary Order Paper, but rather to have discussions with the Government on access arrangements over all the areas within its takiwā where pounamu is found. Accordingly there will be no Supplementary Order Paper related to this. But to keep faith with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act, clarification has been made in this bill that nothing will affect those two Acts.

In order to address some technical drafting matters I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper making some minor amendments to the bill. The passing of this bill, along with the fisheries regulations, will implement the statutory component of the guardians’ strategy. Planning is well under way relating to a number of other measures recommended by the guardians relating to enforcement and compliance, monitoring, biosecurity, information, and education. With the commencement of the Act I will be appointing the new guardians group provided for in the bill, and look forward to involving it in the implementation of these other measures.

Again, I take this opportunity to thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their hard work in developing the strategy, and for their input into the bill through the select committee process. The guardians’ process has been innovative and forward thinking. It has demonstrated how different interests can work together to define a common vision for an area and work cooperatively to reach that vision. It also demonstrates the reality of using local knowledge to make positive and sustainable local decisions. I am hopeful that some components of the guardians’ approach will provide a model for future local management and problem solving.

It is worth noting that, yes, the guardians have worked for 10 years, but for the last 4 years, at least, they have worked with Ministry for the Environment funding and support. This was a real partnership with a group that came to us and said: “To do this successfully we need Government support; and more than just fine words, we actually need the cash to do this.”, and we have done this. I also thank the Southland Regional Council for its cooperation and assistance throughout the bill’s development.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I am pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and give our support to this bill. But in so doing I wish to commence my speech by referring to the Minister’s previous statements. I refer in particular to the issue she just referred to, which is that representations have been made to the Minister of Fisheries, and her, with regard to catch by recreational fishers. That raises the whole issue of the Fiordland Marine Management Bill—an area-specific bill—against the backdrop of continued Government inaction and lack of planning with regard to the whole marine area.

Some of us in this House would have made representations with regard to a so-called oceans policy, which was meant to be an overarching policy to cover the total marine life on the near coast. None of that has been seen. When the request came to the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at this bill, it seemed to me to be rather strange that we were being asked to look at a bill alongside the unfinished business of a marine reserves bill, which has now been delayed further—it has been put to bed till after the election, because it is too hard. In actual fact, while we strongly support this bill—and I will give other reasons in the forthcoming few minutes—we deplore the fact that this specific legislation is before the House against no ability of the present Government to progress a progressive sequential policy with regard to the oceans of New Zealand.

Therefore we, last year, in looking at these matters with regard to marine parks and reserves, saw with regard to Mimiwhangata, which is an area in Northland, the need for a policy that began with consultation and led to understanding. Now, in the Fiordland Marine Management Bill that took place. It did not begin, by the way, because of Government concerns. This bill had its genesis right back in the mid-1990s because recreational and commercial fishermen, tourist operators, and others knew and had a unique understanding of what had to be done if they were to preserve and have recognised what hitherto they had regarded as their natural right—the natural right of recreational fishermen, and the acquired right of commercial fishermen, to fish as they were able to under existing regulations in regard to the Fiordland area. That is where it began. Also, the tourist operators were interested in being able to maintain their activities. So this did not begin because of some Government bureaucrat thinking it was a wise policy. It did not begin here in Wellington. It began out there in the regions.

The first point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that one of the reasons we believe this is a very sound progressive bill is that this is a model that we were talking about last year in regard to Mimiwhangata, Aotea—or Great Barrier Island—and, shortly, the Three Kings.

This is a model that I believe should be adopted against the overarching final provisions of an oceans policy. So we applaud the fact that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment took up the challenge and then realised in the year 2000 that they alone needed to bring in wider community input, including those traditional sectors of the community who have a precious regard for the community—and I mean that in the very best sense—so that all the so-called environmental issues were finally covered in the enlarged guardians committee. I acknowledge what the has Minister has said—that that was accomplished after the year 2000 by funding and support from Government agencies. As well, I acknowledge the work of the Southland Regional Council, which also realised that this was part, if one likes, of its marine and coastal management, and I acknowledge the part that at least two officers played in the development of this programme.

So we finish today with a sound bill before us; a bill that was changed by the select committee after its representations. The bill contains an acknowledgment that the gifting of what would have been acquired property rights by a segment of the community, the long-term right of recreational fishers to have a certain take being reduced, and also other areas of concession being made by the community, all incorporated into a comprehensive plan. From that plan came an acknowledgment that those unique areas of marine biodiversity, which we believe are the basis for a marine reserve, fit quite naturally. That brings me to the second part, as far as New Zealand First is concerned.

We see in the wider marine park concept, an understanding that if the process begins with consultation in the very first instance, with all stakeholders, in a cooperative understanding that they wish to achieve a harmonious end—the long-term management of the coast, the seabed, and foreshore resources in their community—only then will ministries such as the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry for the Environment be able to progress together a sustainable management plan, and one that the local community considers to be theirs. Ownership thereby ensues, as has happened in this bill. Therefore, those measures of enforcement, if needed, will take place naturally, because the local community, or the regional community, realise that that is to their long-term gain and benefit.

The third issue about this bill is that, in its revised form—after submissions to the select committee—it recognises more fully the fact that the guardians had a real role to play, which in the first reading debate we did not see. So we are very pleased to support the select committee’s considerations. The guardians are still a fundamental part of the long-term management. There are issues of regret. The major issue of regret for New Zealand First is not just the fact that this should have been part of an overarching oceans policy, and it is not just the fact that this has been taken out of its context and used as an area-specific example; it is the fact that in present Government legislation there is no capacity whatever to allow for integrated management at departmental or ministry level. That concept was one that the select committee wished to advance, but we were told very strongly and cogently by officials that at the present time there is no ability in legislation for an integrated role for the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation with regard to aquaculture and the marine farming environment, and no ability for there to be a cohesive, coherent structure with regard to the matters inherent in this bill. That is just not possible, and that is a disappointment to us. That should have been able to be incorporated, and that view was apparent in the submissions made to the committee.

The process this bill went through did include consultation—it was initiated, first of all, at a local level. The bill does not provide for integrated management. What it does do is almost recognise that the guardians—and this is very important for them—relinquish a variety of rights, or so-called rights, in the interests, their interests, of ensuring the quality and sustainable management of the environment and fisheries in the long term. So the bill incorporated a whole range of expectations, benefits, and activities that New Zealanders have always believed were theirs—and that is the case particularly with regard to recreational fishermen—being incorporated into an agreed understanding of how this can proceed over the next 7 years, and with regard to a proper review. The guardians will be a major part of the review as to what had been accomplished, and what should be the purpose of any further development in the area.

We are very pleased to support this real advance in thinking on the part of the Government in accepting an area-specific bill that covers the very aspects of consultation, cooperation, and responsible thinking by Government ministries in regard to a local issue. I only wish that people at Aotea—Great Barrier Island—Mimiwhangata, and the Three Kings could feel the same satisfaction in years to come that they could endorse such a model and that it could be part of their day-to-day thinking and activity.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : In rising on behalf of United Future to address the Fiordland Marine Management Bill in its second reading, I first express our appreciation of the initiative that has been taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. As we mentioned in our first speech, it began a process of local decision-making in order to come up with an alternative to the approach currently being undertaken, which seems to focus only around the marine reserve applications being put forward by the Department of Conservation. This alternative is something that gives a lot of people in New Zealand some hope of a way forward in terms of how our marine areas can be protected, while still giving respect and consideration to those who enjoy the marine environment but do not particularly hold to the philosophy that the only way to protect it is to have large marine reserves all over the place. I congratulate the guardians on their process. It has been a major achievement for them to go through this process and arrive at a consensus and an agreement. As a result of listening to submitters to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on the bill, I think the guardians do need to be commended further for the way that they have managed the process.

It did, however, come as a surprise—and Phil Heatley mentioned this in his speech—to find that the guardians’ own submission had some quite serious concerns in it. The guardians felt that after they had completed their process the bill had been somewhat hijacked and diverted from its original intention, which was really about a fisheries management issue in their area. I am pleased to see that the committee and the Minister have agreed to make changes, so that the bill can be returned to much more of its original intent. I still have some concerns about the use of the word “preservation” in the bill, because I do not think that that was the guardians’ intent. I think they are very practically minded people down there in Southland, who understand that it is impossible to preserve anything. They simply want to do the best they can to manage and protect the area. The marine reserves that are being established are part of that goal, but the idea that we can preserve things really takes matters a bit too far. In fact, in my recent trip there, seeing the damage done by recent earthquakes showed me that the environment is changing all the time. We have to be flexible in that situation and do our best to keep things in good order. But to go too far and try to keep everything locked up in order to maintain that pristine environment seems to me to be ideological nonsense.

Fiordland is a beautiful area, and in many ways it has a natural protection by virtue of its remoteness and its wild nature. I think that we could go over the top in trying to preserve it for future generations—it will preserve itself, and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is a rugged and an amazing place. My recent visit was the first time I had been there, and I really appreciated the assistance given to me by Ministry for the Environment officials and also by the Southland Regional Council. They facilitated an opportunity to look through the area and to talk with the guardians after we had completed the select committee deliberations on the bill. It certainly helped me to understand more of the complexity of the process.

I am happy that the committee has addressed some of Ngāi Tahu’s concerns about the extraction of pounamu. The final Supplementary Order Paper that we will discuss in the Committee stage is designed to finish that process.

I had concerns about the recreational fishers’ submissions that came into the select committee, and also about the submissions that they put into the guardians’ consultation process. I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the issue right, because we are dealing with differences of opinion between local fishers, people who go there on charter fishing trips, and people who maybe travel there once a year from around New Zealand on their annual fishing holiday. It would be difficult to strike the right balance between those groups. I think there is a need to recognise the differences between charter boat operators and those who fish there in their own boats, particularly with regard to the bag limits that have been recommended by the guardians. A cut from 30 blue cod to three, with no right to accumulate numbers on a daily basis, seems to me to be a very severe cut. It was agreed to, none the less, by the representatives amongst the guardians who were speaking on behalf of recreational fishers.

My concern has been whether that cut was necessary. We heard from submitters who said that they did not mind accepting reductions in their bag limits or the non-accumulation provisions, provided there was good science to back up the provisions. I think recreational fishers in New Zealand are good environmentalists. They are not there to plunder the resources of the sea; they want to see them remain there for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. But they were asking some fairly reasonable questions, I thought. That is why I have raised the issue in the select committee, with Minister Hobbs, and also with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. It is clear that it is difficult to make any changes to the “gifts and gains” process; it was the key part of the agreement. This bill does not even deal with the fishing regulations, so United Future is happy to support the bill at its second reading, through the Committee stage, and into its third reading. We think it is a very good bill and one that will have very positive outcomes for the Fiordland area. But there were things that I thought could have been done to address some of the concerns of recreational fishers. I am very pleased to have had cooperation from the Hon Marian Hobbs and also from the Hon David Benson-Pope, which has meant we were able to address those concerns in some way.

The new advisory panel that the Minister of Fisheries is establishing to represent recreational fishers in New Zealand is a good forum for him to review the consultation process and to see what its members’ advice to him may be. There were 287 submissions during the guardians’ consultation process from all around New Zealand. Those submissions far outnumbered those from the other submitters in the process, but they were treated as one submission because they all came from Option4 and were on a form submission, which was somehow deemed to be less significant than other submissions. But I think those submitters still made very good points. In fact, about 90 of them made personal comments on their submissions, which still outnumbered the other submitters who had other concerns about the whole process. So I think it would be good if the newly established ministerial advisory group of recreational fishers could look at that and take up some of the issues.

The other part of the recreational fishing issue had to do with the science behind the decision to make such drastic cuts in bag limits. I think there is a lot more that can be done to see whether the fish stocks, particularly of blue cod, are under any threat from fishing in the fiords. Perhaps some more scientific and investigative work could be done. Recreational fishers around New Zealand could then be reassured by the Minister giving an undertaking to conduct a review of the bag limits in a couple of years’ time, if other scientific evidence comes to the fore that shows there is no real risk and no real danger to fish stocks.

Perhaps there is also a way of treating the non-accumulation regulations differently for people on charter boats, compared with those who are fishing on their own boats. I can understand the concerns about a charter boat that takes on 60 fishers who can each get three fish a day. When that tally is added up for a week, a great tonnage of fish has been hauled out of the area. It may be wise not to allow for that accumulation on a charter boat. But for a family, or for a fisher and a few of his or her mates, who go out on their own boat and who suffer a few days of bad weather and therefore cannot catch any fish on those days, it seems that it would pose no real danger to the environment if they could accumulate their bag limit over 3 or 4 days of that holiday, and take a few fish home to give to their neighbours. That is very much a part of the Kiwi culture. We fish not only for ourselves; we give a bit to our neighbours when we get home. That is the way we all enjoy the bounty of the sea around us.

United Future is keen to support the bill. We believe that it has been through a good process, and we do not want to hold it up in any way. I really appreciate the consideration given to us, but say that there will need to be some review of the catch provisions on behalf of recreational fishers. We look forward to further debate through the Committee stage in the House this week.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Greens have supported this bill because we are passionate about marine reserves and are committed to seeing many more of them in place in our seas. We are committed to seeing the marine environment managed sustainably and the non-extractive values given much greater weight. Those values are inherent values—not just the services that the sea provides for communities, but inherent values that the sea holds in its own integrity and on its own account. We are delighted that there are to be marine reserves in Fiordland National Park, but we have many concerns about the level of protection for the marine reserves that are set out in the bill.

Fiordland is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in our country, and it has a very special interface between the land and the sea. Its national and international importance is so significant that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. Fiordland has ecological features that are absolutely unique, in the true meaning of that word. Because the fresh water that runs on the top of the saltwater prevents the light from penetrating through, we have extraordinary corals at very shallow depths that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot usually go. Those corals flourish in the fiords. In New Zealand terms and in international terms, Fiordland is an ecological treasure. But this bill, for all its attempts to protect that treasure, also fails in many ways and it therefore puts that treasure at continued risk of damage. The Greens want to remedy those risks. We will be proposing amendments to this bill in order to do that.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee heard a number of submissions about the process by which the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment had achieved its strategy document and about the extent of its consultation. The Greens applaud the guardians’ extraordinary efforts in achieving the level of agreement that they have achieved. But that does not make them perfect, and it does not justify the risk that the marine reserves will continue to face. Much was made of the “gifts and gains” approach to the protection of the fiords taken by the guardians, and there has been some discussion about that today. Much was also made of the fact that all stakeholders were involved in the discussions. But we know that that is not true. In terms of gifts and gains, it is very clear that the marine environment itself has made the greatest contribution in that process, and that it has gained only the most minor level of protection in return. Only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area will be protected by the reserves. That is a truly disappointing and minimal level of protection. All the reserve areas are to be within the inner fiords, leaving the outer, ecologically distinct areas unprotected.

Many ecologically fragile areas, for example those described as “china shops”, have lost any protection that they had, because the select committee decided to remove the restrictions on anchoring over them. Officials argued that because people did not anchor over those areas anyway, no restrictions were necessary. But that is a ridiculous argument. It is unbelievable that that argument was supported by the select committee, because now those very precious coral areas have absolutely no legal protection from damage. People will not even know that those areas are there and will not know they should avoid damaging them in that way. The Greens are putting up an amendment to reinstate the anchoring restrictions, because it is absolutely critical that those areas have the maximum amount of protection. There is no justification for removing those restrictions from this bill.

We are also very concerned that aircraft are allowed to land and take off within the marine reserves—within that 1 percent of the area—without any controls whatsoever. No concessions from the Department of Conservation are even needed. In national parks on land around this country, tour bus operators need concessions just to drive into a national park and out again. But the Fiordland marine reserves do not even get that very minimal level of protection. It would take only one spill of aviation fuel to wreak havoc with the ecology of the marine reserve. If there is just one minor accident, the whole of that reserve area will be irreparably damaged, especially since water movement in and out of the inner fiords is very slow, and it would be very difficult to mount clean-up responses within those areas. Yet we are placing them at risk by removing any controls whatsoever on the taking off and landing of aircraft.

The Greens were very disappointed in the guardians’ approach to the bill at the select committee hearings. We acknowledge the guardians are the primary group that has driven this process, and for that they should be congratulated. But it is not a question of the guardians owning this process. This area is nationally and internationally precious, and we all have a stake in its preservation—preservation which, as Mr Baldock mentioned previously, is about maintaining the area’s integrity and enhancing the integral values of the area for their own sake. Mr Baldock said that the area would be able to preserve itself, but that is simply not true. As we all know, all those sorts of areas are very fragile and are subject to damage from human use. We need to have the maximum amount of protection. Given that we are talking about only 1 percent of the whole area being put into marine reserves, surely that 1 percent deserves to be given the maximum amount of protection and preservation that we can provide.

We recognise the guardians’ role, but we also recognise that they are primarily a group of recreational and commercial users of the area, and we are disappointed that they did not have more respect for the ecological values of the fiords. Their wish to have the bill not refer to the international and national importance of the fiords was particularly disappointing. I have already said that the fiords have world heritage status and that Fiordland is a national park. It is ridiculous to argue that the words “national” and “international” should be taken out of the bill. That request, along with the submission that the word “preservation” be deleted from the bill—because the guardians said that it was insulting—clearly demonstrates that the intention behind the guardians’ strategy, and hence this bill, is to protect the interests of users to the greatest extent possible, with the fewest possible measures put in place to protect and preserve the incredible biodiversity of this national ecological treasure. That is a very disappointing approach to take towards the marine reserves of such an important place.

The Greens have supported a greater role for the guardians in the ongoing management and review of the marine reserve areas. It is absolutely imperative that local communities are involved in that, but we argued very hard for a conservation representative to be a member of that group in order to ensure that there is an advocate for the marine environment itself, not just the users of it. We are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that will seek support from the House to have one representative from the New Zealand Conservation Authority among the membership of the Fiordland Marine Guardians. That is sought to make sure that the guardians are a broad church, and that they represent all the interests that the fiord areas contain. It is really critical that the marine environment has an advocate. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a very long history of involvement in marine reserves. It has extraordinary expertise, yet this Government and other political parties in this House refused at the select committee deliberations to have a Conservation Authority member appointed to the Fiordland Marine Guardians, for no other reason than that they did not want to. But that leaves that marine environment at incredible risk, because no one is there to advocate for it on its own terms and for its own sake.

The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill, and I have discussed some of them. I sincerely hope the House supports those amendments. They are designed to restore to the bill much-needed advocacy of the inherent integrity of marine biodiversity, which is sadly and obviously missing from the bill as it is now. We hope the House will give those amendments due consideration and support them if this bill is truly to meet its objectives of protecting, preserving, and assuring for future generations not just the management of the resources that the reserves will give to our people but the protection of the precious corals and all the biodiversity that lives within them, for their own sake and for the sake of future generations.

• Debate interrupted.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill that it take the bill part by part.

• Motion agreed to.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to, bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system, by statute, at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party, the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However, the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised, particularly in regard to the review process.

Firstly, changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly, clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation, who will, in turn, consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly, and probably most importantly of all, the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members, rather than two, who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party, in the name of Metiria Turei, has moved some amendments to this part, all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably, we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly, the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch.

The final form of the plan, on which this bill is based, recognised, in a modest way, the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically, to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this, and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities, be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited, being completed within a year of its start.

In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise, aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas.

Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6, 7, and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3.

KEITH LOCKE: Does that not include the schedules?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is schedule 13 only.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill and welcome the recommendation by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to change clause 14 so that when the Minister appoints the Fiordland Marine Guardians, he or she needs to ensure that at least five members are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions, whereas the original bill required only two. It is important that the focus is on the local area, and I think the change will strengthen those provisions.

Initially, I think the Minister appointing the guardians is the necessary way forward. It is a process that began in the local area, and those who first became involved were those who were willing to put up their hands and volunteer their time for what was going to be quite a long process—one that would require a considerable amount of self-sacrifice in terms of their time and energy to see it through.

So we are comfortable for the Minister to continue with an appointment process after this bill is enacted, but in the long term United Future would like to see communities choosing representatives in their area, similar to the process we now have with our district health boards, where we have elections for a number of the board members, then the Minister can appoint a few others, perhaps to fill in a few gaps where he or she sees that the board does not have representation. That would be a good step forward, and perhaps with the implementation of clause 21, “Ministerial reviews” that recommendation may be made in the future as the guardians bed in and settle down. Perhaps in the years ahead communities will have an opportunity to elect their guardians’ representatives. We in United Future believe that would work very well for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the 13 conservancies around the country that are, at this stage, ministerial appointments. We think there could be a balance between elections and ministerial appointments to fill in some gaps where there might be a lack in experience or representation of community interests. However, at this stage United Future is comfortable with the appointment process, and we will look forward to that review occurring in 15 years’ time.

We also welcome clause 22A, “Protocol between management agencies and Guardians”, which we think will strengthen the important role of the guardians so that the process continues to be a locally-managed one that Government agencies must take account of, work with, and take note of the advice the guardians give. That was the whole genesis of this project, anyway—working together with Government agencies but not being led by them, and allowing local residents to take care of their own marine environment. We believe most residents are capable of doing so. We want to see it not just applied in Fiordland but also adopted in other regions around the country. I think that New Zealanders are conservation minded. They know how to take care of the environment, and, when engaged properly, there can be a win-win situation both for Government agencies and for the community. United Future wishes to commend this part to the Committee, and we will be supporting it.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (e) of subclause (2).

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Railways Bill be now read a second time. Last year the Government rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation, and pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of New Zealand’s transport infrastructure. In addition, the Government’s funding assistance for passenger rail services in Auckland and Wellington—rolling stock, stations, and track—will have extra investment. The aim is to encourage patronage, so that access is improved and road congestion and environmental impacts are reduced. A national rail strategy is currently being developed. It is intended to provide a framework for the development of rail in New Zealand. Its focus will primarily be on improving rail freight and urban passenger transport, in order to support economic growth and to contribute to the well-being of individuals and their communities.

This bill is aimed at promoting the safe operation of the rail industry. It recognises the changes in rail ownership and operational activities, and reflects the strong commitment made by the Government to recognise the recommendations made in the Ministerial Inquiry into Tranz Rail Occupational Safety and Heath 2000, also known as the Wilson report. The bill introduces a more integrated and robust regime that is based squarely on safety risk management principles. Under the current legislation, rail operators are accountable for safety through their approved safety management systems. There are now a growing number of participants in the rail sector whose activities are fundamental to the safe delivery of a rail service, but who will not be covered by a safety management system. The bill extends the licensing regime to cover a greater proportion of those that are termed “rail participants” under this legislation. It requires a clear and visible chain of responsibility between licence holders and subsidiary organisations.

The bill takes a co-regulatory approach to safety. Responsibility for safety is placed squarely on the separate licence holders and their associated rail participants, to provide assurance to the Government that the safety policies and operational systems they have in place mean that they are operating safely and that they will continue to do so. The bill consolidates existing legislation relating to rail safety and expands on that legislation to address a number of deficiencies in the current rail safety legislative framework.

The bill introduces a wider-ranging process of safety assessment to improve safety assurance. It also broadens the range of enforcement powers available to enforce safety. Currently, rail operators submit a safety management system to be approved by Land Transport New Zealand. The Wilson and Halliburton reports criticised Tranz Rail’s safety management system as being “voluminous and unwieldy”. The bill addresses this issue by splitting the safety management system into a high-level safety case and a separate, but linked, safety system. The safety case contains overarching safety risk management documentation that is designed to ensure that the rail participant can properly assess, control, and manage its safety risk and provide safety assurance to the director of Land Transport New Zealand. The safety system is a documented record of the detailed management and operational policies and practices that relate to the safe conduct of all business activities.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has examined the bill thoroughly and has recommended that it be passed with amendments. I support the amendments—as does the Minister—that are proposed by the committee, as they strengthen the bill. The committee has done a commendable job. Supplementary Order Paper 353 recognises the new authority, Land Transport New Zealand, and ensures the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy are reflected in the rule-making provisions. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses level crossing safety, following recommendations from the coroner concerning a fatality at the Silverstream pedestrian level crossing. These provisions ensure that all parties involved in the operation or management of the crossing will agree in writing on the warning devices to be installed and operated.

The relationship between the bill and the Health and Safety in Employment Act is now a great deal clearer. The role of safety manager, with its high level of personal responsibility, has been removed. This is consistent with the principle that safety is everyone’s responsibility. The committee has refined the hierarchy of interventions the director may take where action is deemed necessary to ensure safe rail operations. Each intervention is more appropriately targeted to the safety risk involved. To clarify safety roles in the new rail environment, a mandatory obligation has been introduced for rail operators and their personnel to obey all instructions from the network controller. The safety case—the key risk management documentation—is now more comprehensive. New aspects require policies to ensure that rail personnel are fit for duty and, in particular, that they are not impaired by drugs or alcohol. There also needs to be a policy for consultation with unions and other representatives of rail personnel in the development of safety systems that affect rail personnel.

The revised Railways Bill will assist in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to rail by improving rail safety performance. It reinforces the rail safety framework and supports other rail initiatives, such as the repurchase of the rail network, the investment in rail infrastructure, and the development of a national rail strategy. I commend the Railways Bill to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I am very happy to take a call in the second reading of the Railways Bill, and I want to make a few points about it. First of all, the National Party is prepared to support this legislation as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because I think a process was finally followed that this House would be pleased with, but I do not think that members can be pleased with how it started out. The House and the select committee were presented with an initial bill that I think had had an appalling level of consultation with the various industry players.

As everyone in this House knows, the very semantics of the wording we use can often make a big difference. I know that Dr Michael Cullen knows that changing just one word can alter the meaning of an entire agreement or bill. Dr Cullen knows that; he is an expert at the changing of one word.

We ended up in this case with a bill that operators such as Toll Holdings were really quite outraged about. Its representatives said to the select committee: “If only we had been able to be consulted with and been able to have our side of things heard, and with just a small amount of change to some of the semantics and some of the wording—where you have ‘all reasonable steps’ and ‘all practicable steps taken’—we could have lived with a lot of this. But in the way it is currently worded, it will just be an absolute bunfight.” I have to say that all sorts of things about safety in the workplace had to be adhered to, which in some cases, as far as I could tell, were contradictory to the actual Health and Safety in Employment Act.

It seemed to the select committee that there was a way around that, and that the officials should have gone away and talked, because we had a very good basis for the bill. That was the Wilson report. I am very happy to say that I think the Wilson report was of substance. It had some value, and we were hoping that we could turn the Wilson report into a legislative vehicle. That is what I think we have ended up with. As the Minister, who just spoke in the second reading, said, there is a high-level safety case in relation to all the operators who work on a railway line.

We need to understand what the big difference is with railways now. Instead of there being just the former one operator that both ran the carriages and trains and owned the line, and so on—likeNew Zealand Rail, as it used to be for years, or like Tranz Rail, as it then called itself—we have split up the railway line. I guess the best analogy for that is the situation with the roads, where a particular body owns the roads. In the case of the State highways it is Transit, on behalf of the Government, and all the players that want to operate on those roads, like trucking companies and private motorists, pay for specific access to use those roads. With rail, we will see a range of different operators, from the big Toll Holdings, which is the biggest operator, to Connex, which is running trains in Auckland, to smaller companies, and to the hobbyist railways, where trains run for only a few kilometres on a little spur somewhere. So the legislation is required.

I make the case again that the National Party was very happy about the legislation but, as the Minister has said, there is a Supplementary Order Paper to come. I have just been able to look at it. We were not aware of this Supplementary Order Paper, even though this legislation was introduced back in 2003 and the select committee, I repeat, reported back to the House on 9 August 2004. There has been plenty of time, if the Government had wanted to have some cooperation on the Supplementary Order Paper, to let members of the Opposition see it before today, before we suddenly bring this bill in and bang it through under urgency.

I have looked at this Supplementary Order Paper and, as with some Supplementary Order Papers, I see that it is reasonably trivial. There is some stuff in it that now calls the authority Land Transport New Zealand, because when the bill was introduced the authority was the Land Transport Safety Authority. Of course, no one will object to that, but how about something like the proposed new clause 48(a) that gives the Minister the power to make rules concerning “… rail vehicles, railway premises, or railway infrastructure:”? The bill as introduced, under clause 51(a), provided that ordinary rules could be made, amongst other things, to “regulate the use of railway lines, and empower access providers to control, restrict, and prohibit the use of a railway line, and to close railway lines in specified circumstances or on specified occasions.” But quite serious concern was expressed about that.

The select committee members, I think, worked very cooperatively—Lynne Pillay is in the House today, and I think that she will agree that the select committee worked very cooperatively—to get the bill to where it is, but what do I see in this Supplementary Order Paper? The select committee had deleted that power because on evidence, on balance, and across the board of all operators who made that submission, it was something that should not have been in the bill. But what do I see now? I see that Supplementary Order Paper 353 proposes to reinstate it.

The Minister is saying that he does not care what was said in the submissions from all the various interested players at the committee hearing. He does not care about what the officials finally advised the committee, or, indeed, what members of the committee across Labour, the Greens, National, and ACT—four parties or maybe even five parties; I do not think that United Future was represented on the committee—all agreed to, and agreed to in a very cooperative style. No—remembering that the bill was reported back on 9 August 2004, we now have a situation where the Minister has come back with a Supplementary Order Paper and has shoved that provision back in.

Now, I have to say that that really tests our resolve to try to work cooperatively. I think that sending the officials away to work with the various players—mainly Toll, because it is the main game in town, but also a number of others—got us a bill that was tidy and a report back we could all sign up to. It got us into a space where we were comfortable—but now this has happened. It is actually a sort of Michael Cullen on steroids trick. This is not just changing one word; this is coming back and changing the entire intent of the bill by whamming in a Supplementary Order Paper in at the last minute.

I will be talking a little more to some of my colleagues about how we will deal with this bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. But, at this point, I say that the bill as reported back from the select committee does great credit to all members of that committee, to the officials, and to the people outside who have to run the rail system. If this bill were passed as it came back from the committee, we would have a safer rail system in which people would know their responsibilities more clearly. The chain of command would be established as to who was responsible for the railway lines, for the land on the side of the railway lines, for the operation of the rolling stock, for the health and safety of workers on the railways and members of the public who come near a railway line by way of using a railway crossing or walking beside it, and for the rights of individuals to enter on to railways land or to walk off it.

This bill would cover all of that in what I think is a very tidy fashion—but not when the Government, in the form of the Minister, just says it does not care what everybody has agreed to or how long the process took place: “I know best; I am in charge. ‘We won. You lost. Eat that!’ Here is a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute.”

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I am very pleased to rise and take a call on this bill, because I agree with Maurice Williamson that it is a very important bill. I also agree with him that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked really hard on it. I think that the outcome is very, very good. I also have to commend the industry for its submissions, and the union and the employers, who worked together and put very much time and energy into making sure that all the t’s were crossed and all the i’s were dotted, and that we ended up with the best bill we could get. After all, this Government believes that a well-developed, safe, and sustainable transport system is absolutely essential to growth and innovation.

Let us not forget what this bill was a result of. Last year we rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation, and we pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of our transport infrastructure. The bill seeks to build on that. It aims to, and certainly will, improve rail safety. That is very, very important. The bill will transfer rail safety legislation into a comprehensive piece of legislation—namely, this bill—so that what we see is what we get.

The bill will also ensure public safety and the protection of those who are not covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It will ensure health and safety on the job, which this Government is really committed to, as are the workers and their representatives out there. The bill will also gain assurance from the rail industry that it is managing its safety risks.

There has been much work and much commitment, as I said before, from both the union and the employers within this industry to ensure that all bases are covered. I have no hesitation in standing here as a member of the select committee and commending this bill to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I agree with almost every word the honourable member who has just resumed her seat said. When this bill went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there was a great deal of cooperation between members. The officials took a huge amount of time, going back three or four times, I think, to various participants in the railway system. I also agree that this bill is essential to make our railways safe. I most certainly agree that the Government has bought back the railway line in a dilapidated state and that it needs some capital injected into it. I do not think $200 million will be enough—I think it will fall short by a long way—but I agree that the railway system was in a dilapidated state and needed some money put into it.

But now we have this Supplementary Order Paper, about which I note the honourable member Lynne Pillay did not say a word. I have only just received a copy of it and I have only had a limited amount of time to read it. I have to say that it raises a question mark in my head. I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson, and I think he made a very good point—despite the fact that he is obviously suffering from Alzheimer’s, because he could not remember that Peter Brown and New Zealand First were on the select committee.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I said that.

PETER BROWN: No, the member did not. He got it wrong.

Hon Maurice Williamson: My total apology. I withdraw and apologise.

PETER BROWN: I thank the member. He has raised some concerns that do not sit comfortably with us at all. We will take a closer look at this Supplementary Order Paper, because I hope the Minister has not undermined—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Michael Cullen.

PETER BROWN: Does the member think it is a Michael Cullen trick?

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, he changed one word—

PETER BROWN: He has actually changed about a thousand words, by the look of this Supplementary Order Paper, so we will take a very careful look at it. I hope that the Minister has not pulled some sort of swifty on the select committee, because the select committee took a lot of time and trouble in endeavouring to get this bill right. New Zealand First is of the mind that the bill should be supported in its entirety, and if the Minister has reversed some of the assertions in the bill, then we will be concerned.

Our only other concern—we would like to put this to the Government, maybe one of the next speakers for the Government will tell us the reason—is why it has taken so long to get this bill before the House. The bill was reported back mid last year, and now, in April 2005, we are discussing it in urgency and trying to progress it through the House.

I do not think there is a great deal more I can say. I remember at the time being impressed by the way the select committee applied its talents, its determination, and its dedication to getting this bill correct and fair in all manner of areas. New Zealand First was very impressed with the attitude of the committee and the outcome—the way the bill was finalised. But I am just a bit concerned by this Supplementary Order Paper, and we will be taking a closer look at it when the bill gets to the Committee stage. In the meantime, New Zealand First still supports the bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) : The ACT party does not support the Railways Bill. It is always hard to argue against safety, because one’s opponents can then very easily put out a sound bite saying that one’s party is arguing against safety. When we debated the first reading of this bill, the Hon Jim Anderton, as members might recall, stood up and used a very emotional ploy. He talked about the terrible accident that happened to the child Morgan Jones on the railway. A considerable amount has already been done since that accident. In fact, since 2000 when the Wilson report came out, Tranz Rail, in particular, has done a significant amount of work in improving its safety standards.

There are a number of reasons why ACT cannot support this bill. It started off with good intentions. It went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, as the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, and we on the select committee worked towards reporting back with something on which we could reach at least some sort of quasi-agreement that it was better than what came to the select committee in the first place. But, as is typical, especially when we are in urgency—it comes back to urgency—we have to pass all remaining stages of the bill, and lo and behold, there is a Supplementary Order Paper that damn near takes the bill back to what it was before it went to the select committee in the first place and before we heard all the submissions.

And there were significant submissions on this piece of legislation—from Federated Farmers, from Toll Holdings, from Tranz Rail, from the unions, and from the small railways operators. Those are the operators of heritage railway tracks and the small not-for-profit organisations—charitable trusts that run railways just because they are rail nuts. And good on them. They do a good job in terms of preserving some of our historical railways heritage. But this bill is a push by the unions. It is a union-backed bill. It is interesting that—

Jill Pettis: Rubbish!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Well, Lynne Pillay just stood up and said it was pushed by the unions. She said it in her own words. She said that the unions backed this bill—

Lynne Pillay: I didn’t.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: She cannot even remember what she said 5 minutes ago, but she said it was a union bill, and she said that it was good to see that the employers cooperated with the unions. Well, what choice do the employers have—the wealth creators, the working people in New Zealand—when these pieces of legislation come before them? They had the Health and Safety in Employment Act, they had the amendment to that, and then on top of that they have the Railways Bill. If that member had even bothered to read the Wilson report she would have seen that it specifically stated that rail should not be disadvantaged when it came to safety measures, that any legislation that followed the report should not be anti-competitive, and that rail should be on the same footing as other forms of transport.

This is not what we have seen. This Railways Bill is demonstrably stricter and more prescriptive than analogous legislation that deals with air transport and road transport. It is significantly more prescriptive in a number of ways, and one is that there is a regulator. The participants, as they are defined under this bill—the licensees, and the people who control access to rail—said in their submissions that they accepted that they have to be responsible for safety and for the setting standards, they have to be accountable for those standards, and they have to be accountable when things go wrong. There is no problem there, they do not disagree with that at all. But what will happen is that having a regulator responsible for all that will take the responsibility for the safety standards, and setting the compliance and vigilance for those standards, away from the rail companies—the rail participants—and put them in the hands of a regulator. All the participants will be reduced to box ticking and ensuring that the companies comply.

As I said at the beginning, it is hard to argue against safety, and we do not argue against safety. But one always has to remember that safety comes at a cost. Under this bill, safety is coming at a significant cost. Those parties, such as the Greens, who say they want to save rail, should look very carefully at the costs in this legislation that will be inflicted on rail operators. The licensing costs will go up for the participants, and the fees have not been set yet. Plus Land Transport New Zealand has stated that its costs will go up. Its hourly rate will go up to $160 an hour. There will be no time limit on that, so those costs will run into the many thousands, and those costs will always be passed on to the people who use rail, whether it be freight operators, or whether it be passengers.

The companies themselves will not carry those costs. When those companies find that they are in financial difficulty and that they cannot carry the costs and have to pass them on to their customers, what will this Government do? I know what they will do. We will see more of this nationalisation of State assets in reverse. We will see a repeat of what happened with Air New Zealand. It will happen with the railways, and we will go “back to the future” where, in 1 year, $90 million of taxpayers’ money was lost by New Zealand Rail, and where we had shocking safety standards.

The member Lynne Pillay has huge faith in Crown ownership ensuring that safety follows. She has an incredible faith in politicians. I do not have that faith in politicians. I would not have that faith in any politician to ensure that no accident happens on the rail, and this is what this legislation will do, because it puts the onus on the Minister of Transport. The perception out there will be that the Minister of Transport will keep rail safe. What will happen the first time that there is an accident? Who is going to be responsible? Will the Minister of Transport put up his hand and say “mea culpa”? I doubt it very much. This is bad legislation made worse by a Supplementary Order Paper introduced at the last minute to overturn the agreements that were reached at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we will not be supporting this bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I am happy to take a very brief call on the Railways Bill. As the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to thank fellow committee members for all their hard work—those who turned up and understood the bill. I think there was an ACT leadership thing going on—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Primary!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Yes, primary—that was it—paid for by the taxpayer. It was not done by rail, though; I think it was done by aeroplane. Quite frankly, I think that speech was an ungracious one, because Deborah Coddington does actually contribute very positively to the committee when she is there. On this bill, all the members worked through a very good process.

As the Minister of Defence said in his speech, this measure is about an approach whereby the Government does not set the rules then expect the people out there just to follow them; the people out there are actually engaged in setting the rules themselves, monitoring them, and making sure, from both the management and the workforce perspectives, that they have the safest possible rail system in New Zealand. There are many terrible international examples of rail safety gone wrong. The select committee tried to learn from those examples and not repeat the mistakes. I think in this bill we have the best of both worlds. We have proper Government intervention through a proper Government agency, but, more important, we have management and workers together making sure we have a safe railway system. I look forward to the debate in the Committee, where we can test that as we go through the bill.

MIKE WARD (Green) : The Greens are supporting the bill. The process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was good. It took some time to get our heads round the measure, because what we have now is an industry with a great many players, and there is scope for overlap and therefore scope for gaps between responsibility. This legislation provides measures to ensure responsibilities are met and things do not fall into gaps.

Rail does not have a bad safety record. The problem is that when things go wrong they can go horrendously wrong, and the accidents can be of a horrific nature. Trains are very large and very unstoppable, and it is important that we do have really good processes in place, as Mark Gosche has said. It is up to the operators to write out their safety procedures. But they are not left on their own. They then have to have those safety procedures approved by the Director of Land Transport New Zealand, as it is now.

The mechanisms in place are, first of all, the safety case and the safety mechanisms. The safety case provides the overarching framework of processes and mechanisms, and the safety systems are the more detailed procedures for the day-to-day operations. The removal of the position of safety manager is interesting, the reason for it being that it is believed that all operators have to take a measure of responsibility. The words in the bill provide that the buck actually stops at the highest level. There are a whole range of operators, from access providers to infrastructure owners, rail vehicle owners, premise owners, rail traffic controllers, and maintenance providers. It is important that in each of those areas there is sufficient funding in place to make sure that the operators have the funds and the expertise in place to meet their safety obligations.

Deborah Coddington made a good point about the amount of costs met by rail operators. Of course those costs are higher for rail operators than they are for other transport operators. In the case of road transport we have warrant processes that are administered by somebody else. In the case of rail transport the expertise lies with the rail operators. They have to supervise their own safety processes, to make sure they are done day by day, because they are the ones who know about the matter.

The Greens are pleased to support this legislation.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : Firstly, I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done. United Future does not have a member on that particular committee, but I can see from the report back that the committee worked very cooperatively and made some very useful changes to the legislation. I also thank the officials who helped us with a briefing to enable us to come up to speed with the changes that have been made. As I said, we think that these changes are improvements to the legislation.

The bill proposes a more proactive approach to identifying and managing critical safety issues, by ensuring that the key rail participants are licensed, that key safety data is collected, that operators demonstrate that they are managing safety risks, and that the Land Transport Safety Authority has more powers to audit, inspect, and sanction operators. This bill seeks to reduce compliance costs without reducing safety standards. A feature of the bill is its proportional response to the various issues that arise. It does not seek to overlegislate, but it does not let pressing issues fall through the gaps. It provides distinctions as to who is accountable, and that is very useful. Another feature of this bill is the implicit incentive to maintain a required level of safety standards.

The changes made by the select committee reflect the ongoing vigilance of the industry and Parliament to maintain safety standards and to correct any problems, inconsistencies, or discrepancies—no matter how incidental—that might compromise rail safety or the efficient management of the rail corridor. The inclusion of new definitions of terms and positions in the first series of clauses provides needed clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of positions that are central to operational safety and performance. It also provides for a clear pathway to accountability in order to isolate and fix problems that may arise. We are interested not just in sheeting home the blame to someone but also in then being able to fix the problems that may arise.

The legislation recognises that addressing issues of safety often calls for direct action to be taken, bypassing the line of authority when circumstances warrant it. That is represented in the bill by the requirement to obey the network controller unless circumstances dictate independent action—such as where the network controller has no knowledge of the situation at hand. That flexibility allows for quick action to be taken, and is yet another example of the practical measures that are a hallmark of this bill.

It is encouraging to note that the legislation reflects the thinking of experts in the field who have first-hand experience in other jurisdictions. The fact that an expert from the United Kingdom was consulted on risk management in the rail industry is testimony to the fact that no stone was left unturned to get the best result. This approach—ascertaining as much what to do as what not to do—is a healthy approach to designing safety standards. Safety monitoring at a personal level is also addressed in the bill, which requires that safety assessors have the requisite training, knowledge, and experience to undertake assessments. United Future commends that inclusion of expertise as a necessary requirement of safety assessors.

We are also pleased that unresolved issues surrounding level crossing safety have been addressed in this bill. There have been too many tragedies involving personal safety at level crossings, largely because of a lack of adequate warning devices and signs. We are pleased that there will be improved coordination between parties, both at the local level and at the higher governmental and operator levels, to improve warning signs and related safety measures. It is important that a balance be reached between allowing heritage rail operators—who offer important tourist attractions—not to be overburdened with compliance costs, and still maintaining required safety levels. United Future is pleased that this bill recognises that balance. The bill also provides a good balance between upholding requirements and allowing flexibility to act to achieve railway safety.

United Future congratulates officials and the committee for applying practical solutions to pressing risk management and rail safety problems. This is an approach that United Future always advocates, so we gladly lend our support to the second reading of this bill.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Railways Bill that it take the bill part by part.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Architects Bill be now read a second time. I would like to acknowledge the timely and thorough consideration that the Government Administration Committee has given to the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who made both written and oral submissions. This bill repeals the Architects Act, and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. It is a companion measure to the Building Act, which reinforces the importance of each element of the building process, and it is an important component in the wider review of the regulatory framework for the building industry. A debt of gratitude is owed to the honourable Lianne Dalziel, who introduced the bill into the House, and to the Hon Margaret Wilson.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel has spoken in this House before about the initiatives that are contained in this bill. The bill strengthens the regulatory framework and has a strong focus on consumer protection. It does that by introducing both initial and ongoing competency testing for registered persons, by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against a registered person in the last 3 years, by providing people with the information they need in order to choose a competent, registered architect, and by introducing meaningful reinforcement and sanctions provisions.

The select committee has considered the bill and reported back to the House. It has supported the key principles behind the bill and recommended some amendments to better reflect the policy intent behind the proposals. The main changes from the committee include: an amendment to increase the maximum fines for breaches by registered persons to $10,000, so as to provide a more effective deterrent to offending; an amendment to increase the maximum fines for persons claiming to be registered, when that is not the case, to $10,000 in order to prevent the registration system from being undermined; an amendment to enable the registration board to undertake any function delegated to it under any other enactment, so as to increase flexibility and allow better integration with the Building Act; and an amendment to replace protection of the title “architect” with protection for “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

Following the release of the committee’s report, concern has been raised regarding the appropriate use of the title “architect” in relation to building design. I signal to the House that I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to address those concerns. As currently drafted, the bill requires the registration board to be established on 1 July 2004. That date is no longer appropriate. The Supplementary Order Paper will also ensure that time is provided for the establishment of the board.

I find it interesting that the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration board and has recommended, instead, that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration. That institute is a voluntary industry organisation, and has no statutory role under the bill. As my colleague the honourable Lianne Dalziel said in her first reading speech on the bill, the current registration board, the Architects Education and Registration Board, and the New Zealand Institute of Architects were closely involved in the development of the bill, and it fits with their desire to modernise the regulation of the occupation.

In conclusion, this bill is an integral element of the wider review of the building legislation of 1991 and of the inputs into the building process, and is necessary to ensure that buildings are designed right first time. I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill, and to acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions. I commend this bill, as reported back from the select committee, to the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—[Interruption]

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I can understand your haste in wanting to move on, Madam Speaker, but there are a few comments the National Party wishes to make, particularly in response to the Minister. Before I do that, I welcome the newest member of Parliament, Ms Soper, whom I have not yet had a chance to acknowledge. I hope her time in this place, although it will be brief, will be enjoyable. Perhaps she may learn some lessons from her senior colleague the honourable John Tamihere on how to get promoted in this place, and I wish her luck with the process.

I come back to the Architects Bill, and I say to the Minister who has just finished his speech, Rick Barker, that the reason why the National Party has suggested self-regulation rather than Government-imposed regulation is that more often than not that brings about the best outcome for all concerned. As the Minister said in his opening comments, the whole process started with the Building Bill. We can see now what a circus that legislation has turned into, what a mess the Government has made of it, and how it has had no effect whatsoever on resolving the problems that came from the leaky houses situation we have in New Zealand because of the circus the Government created. With regard to the whole argument around whether architects should be described as “registered architects” or just “architects”, it is our view—and always has been—that the best body to administer that regulation is the group itself, whose members have the expertise, the knowledge, and the desire to see the right outcome.

Architects were themselves caught up in the whole debate around leaky homes. The inquiries that took place into that issue suggested that the failures were systemic, from design—which, of course, is the area where architects are involved—right through to monolithic cladding and untreated timber, and the list goes on and on. Architects themselves were quite anxious to protect their brand, and so they should be. Why should the Government—and this is the question that the Minister did not answer—step in and use a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? Therefore, National believes the regulation that the Minister is suggesting we should have supported is not necessary.

This bill is very good legislation in the sense that it is simple, it protects the brand “registered architect”, and it gives architects the legislative framework that they have decided would be desirable. For that reason, the National Party will support the bill going forward. I know that my colleague Lindsay Tisch has studied this issue substantially, and he will bring forward a recommended change to the bill in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure that the House, once it has fully studied that Supplementary Order Paper, will accept that it is very good, and that it will pass, rather than the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. The numbers in support of National’s Supplementary Order Paper are getting stronger all the time. The Government should take note of that—and it should certainly take note of what Mr Tisch has to say about that—and pass Mr Tisch’s Supplementary Order Paper, which the National Party will be voting for.

I say also to the Minister that it would be helpful if, in his contributions through the debate—if he or any other Labour member is prepared to make another contribution—he would explain to architects why the Government believes that they are not qualified to decide how to regulate themselves. As I recall matters, architects themselves stated in their submissions that the best way to get the outcome the Government wanted was not to use a heavy hand—although the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister rightly said, suggested that increases in the fines should take place. There are now fines of up to $10,000 for a variety of offences—up from $5,000—and a range of other fines in the legislation. We think that that is the right approach. The Minister should explain to the industry why he thinks that his department, or another Government department, is in a much better position than architects, or would have much more knowledge than them, so as to dictate to that group what it should or should not do with regard to the registration of the industry.

Hon Rick Barker: Disgraceful.

SHANE ARDERN: It is a fair question, and the Minister seems to have a view on it. I would like the Minister to explain to us why that is so. There is no evidence to support that approach in most of those cases.

If we look at the Building Act, we see the mess that it has turned into. When central government dictates what “Joe Hard-worker”—the builder with the ute, the dog, and the radio—can do, or even that if “Joe Hard-worker”, as most hard-working Kiwis do, buys a run-down house, does it up himself on the weekend, and allows it to become part of his growth plan in terms of equity, it can dictate the way he must do that, and that he must pay this expert and that expert to give him advice on how to do it, then we end up with the exact opposite of the outcome we set out to try to achieve. It would be good if the Minister could enlighten the House as to how many leaky houses now coming through the inquiry that was set up by the Government are homes that have been renovated by the home-handyman kind of builder. Perhaps in the Minister’s seat of Tukituki there may be one. I have heard of none; I have seen none. I have asked for evidence that “Joe Hard-worker” and “Bob the builder”, with their ute, dog, and radio, caused that problem, and I have seen none. I have seen absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. So I ask the Minister to take a call. I may be proven wrong, but I have not been able to find one single case that could substantiate that argument.

In the case of architects, there are good ones, bad ones, registered ones, and those who use the title of “architect” but who are not registered. Just like hiring or not hiring a master builder, that is something the consumer must always have the right to decide on. If somebody has the skills and expertise to be an architect but does not have the necessary regulation—if that person is not cornered and driven into a high - end cost structure by a Government regulation, but can still give the design work necessary to “Bob the builder” or the home-handyman renovator—then why should he or she not be allowed to do that? The Minister has not answered that question.

National will support this bill because we believe that in its current form, provided that it is not subject to the passing of any Supplementary Order Papers that the Government may subsequently bring forward, it is good legislation.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I am sure that the Minister will take some calls at the Committee stage. We are currently at the second reading. This bill has had a fairly long gestation. I have certainly met with architects in my electorate to discuss their concerns and to listen to the issues of importance to them, and I was very pleased to have that opportunity. Architecture is an important profession. Our built environment is of considerable importance to New Zealand. Although our natural environment receives a lot of attention, our built environment is deserving of attention as well—and it does receive the attention due to it from time to time.

This bill makes a number of changes to improve standards for architects, and I think that that is largely what the profession was aiming for in its consultation—to modernise the legislation that applies to it. The bill has many key features. They include the protection of the title “registered architect” and the establishment of a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect in order to provide better information to his or her consumers. My understanding and experience is that the profession is very client and customer - focused, but the establishment of a public register will be of benefit to both the profession and its clients. The introduction of ongoing competency testing for architects is another feature of the bill, as is a modernised governance and administration process, which will help to bring the legislation in line with current practice in occupational regulation.

A number of amendments were made by the Government Administration Committee. One was an amendment to increase the maximum fine for persons claiming to be registered when, indeed, that is not the case. That fine increases to $10,000 to prevent the registration system from being undermined, because the protection of the integrity of registration is very important. Another amendment replaces the protected title “architect” with “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the select committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

It is interesting that although there is agreement on, and support for, this bill around the House, the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration body, even though that is what the profession wants. The National Party has recommended instead that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration through self-regulation. Given that the vast majority of parties in this House have listened to representatives from the profession, I think National is really just reverting to type, saying: “Let the market rule.” We all know that that principle never works—it never has and it never will. The National Party is basically reverting to type and not responding to professions and organisations that know themselves better than anybody else. This bill will provide advantages for both practitioners and their clients. It is a good bill, and I think that we are all keen to assist in facilitating its rapid passage through the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : One is loath to criticise colleagues, particularly colleagues who work fairly hard and diligently on a select committee, but I have to say that in terms of this bill they got it wrong. They got the substance of the bill correct, because the industry is supportive of the substance of the bill. But the bill as it stands now, without the Supplementary Order Paper, protects the term “registered architect” and leaves the word “architect” out there floating for anybody to use—effectively anybody.

Before I had read the report back from the select committee, I had architect friends contacting me, and they were up in arms. They outlined, in quite some detail, who could or would be likely to use the term “architect”. In basic English an architect, in the minds of most people, is a person who designs buildings or modifications to buildings. When we think of an architect we do not think of a landscape architect, or a software architect—I suggest most of us do not. Because these architects who approached me were so angry, I did a little private survey, asking many people what an architect was—just that one word. They all, without exception, said that an architect was a person who designed buildings. Most of them added: “I would have thought you were old enough to know that, Peter!” after I asked the question. I told them I was asking for a genuine reason.

I think this Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by Mr Tamihere. One has to say he has been getting a lot of flak recently, but if it is true that he initiated it, a degree of debt is owed to the honourable John Tamihere, because without this Supplementary Order Paper this bill could go through protecting the term “registered architect”, as against “architect”.

New Zealand First is absolutely committed to protecting the term “architect” for people who design buildings. Of course, they have to be up to a standard. When we say “buildings” we are talking about homes, commercial buildings, and what have you. But when it comes to homes it is the biggest investment, by far, that anybody makes. If a person has a home or commercial building designed by an architect, that person wants to know that the architect is up to speed. So we want the architect to be registered, to have gone through the necessary exams, and to be kept up to speed with industry requirements. So it is very, very important that an architect is actually an architect, not somebody who has done half a course or has some ability in designing things. He or she must be a fully qualified architect.

New Zealand First is keen to support the Supplementary Order Paper where protection is again offered to the words “registered architect” and “architect”. An architect in simple English language is a person who designs buildings, and the term should be protected. I have to say that for that to escape the notice of the select committee is to do a huge disservice not only to architects but also to people who would use them. I believe that the Minister’s amendment, which, as I say, I think was initiated by John Tamihere, will bring the bill back into line, and I am personally very, very grateful that that has been undertaken. On that basis, New Zealand First will support this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I have to say that I was dying to get the call immediately after the last Government speaker, the senior Government whip, because it was so amusing to see what pure lip service was being paid to the Architects Bill. No Minister was paying any attention. The speaker the Government put up was reading, essentially, from the notes of the Government Administration Committee and was applauding what the committee had done, not knowing that her own Minister had a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table to undo all the good work she was applauding. Mr Brown thinks that the undoing is a good idea; he thinks that Mr Tamihere’s amendments are a sound idea. I do not.

I think it is quite wrong for any profession to seize a general descriptive word, a word that has a meaning in common language that goes far wider than the technical meaning, and then to say: “That’s ours.”, and that anyone else cannot use it. What that seems to mean, for example, is that a landscape architect could be in trouble if he or she were involved in helping to draw up plans for a building. A financial architect doing a financing plan would be in trouble. There are all sorts of uses of the term “architect”—for example, the architect of the Iraq war. It is a general term, a general piece of language.

We simply do not do that in other ways. Accountants, for example, were not allowed to seize ownership of the term “accountant”—the description that was given protection is “chartered accountant”. I think that Mrs Pettis was absolutely right in her praise for what the select committee did. She very correctly identified the contribution the select committee made. It heard submissions and it resisted the self-interested whining of the establishment of the profession, which wanted something far too wide. So for her to draw attention to what the select committee did and to praise it in her speech, as she just did, was sensible.

The sad thing is that Mrs Pettis’ own Government colleagues and Cabinet do not agree with her, and they seem to—

Jill Pettis: Mr Franks, you are putting words into my mouth.

STEPHEN FRANKS: If Mrs Pettis cares to look at her Hansard, she will find that she praised the change of title of the bill to the Registered Architects Bill. She praised the change the committee made to ensure that the term “registered architect” is protected. What the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table will do, even though it may not have been read by anyone on the Government benches, is reverse that good work. I see that the honourable Minister Mr Barker has just suggested that Mrs Pettis hold her tongue, because he knows that I am dead right and that she was dead right the first time. This Government wants to suck up to the professional body and has decided that it is far better to grease to the people with the money—the people who run the professional organisation—and to give them what they have asked for.

That is not usually how this Government portrays consumer protection. This Government usually says that it is making businessmen whine and is making trouble for business, because that is the way it claims it is doing something for the consumer. Instead, in this case, it has succumbed to the representations from the industry. It has taken away a perfectly descriptive word for a whole host of people who should be able to refer to themselves as architects but not as registered architects, and this bill now changes that. I hope that the National Party will vote against the Supplementary Order Paper, because it is wrong.

Lindsay Tisch: We’ll vote against it, unless I get my Supplementary Order Paper changed.

STEPHEN FRANKS: OK, so there is a qualification. Well, I will be interested to follow it, and I hope that we can vote on the same side. I always prefer that.

I am certainly very disappointed to hear that New Zealand First is going to go along with a move to lock up a sensibly descriptive word and give it to one profession. We do not, for example, say that only engineers who are members of the institute can use the term “engineer”. They have to be registered engineers. We do not lock up the term “accountant” for accountants. The new bill for lawyer regulation will not give the degree of absolute assurance that the Registered Architects Bill will now give.

I am glad to see a relatively simple and straightforward piece of law coming in to reform the law that regulates the architecture profession. I am interested that consists of only 48 pages. I compare that with Mr Goff’s disaster bill for the law society of over 300 pages, in which he hands to them just about everything they ever wanted.

I am interested, of course, in one or two of the other things that the Supplementary Order Paper does—in the other last-minute thoughts. One of the problems in this bill that one would have thought would be looked at closely flows from the very poor drafting. The bill refers to plans, but it does not say what a plan is. In this case, for example, I expect we will explore in the Committee of the whole House what a plan that someone draws for a building is. Does it include the landscaping plan? Does it include the plan, for example, of a shopping centre, which would be a very detailed plan outlining how the letting is to be done and exactly which shops will go where?

That would not normally be considered something that the Government would regulate in an Architects Bill. But this legislation is so poorly conceived, like the Building Act, that we will probably end up with some poor real estate agents suddenly being advised someday by their lawyers that they are caught by an Act they would never have dreamt would touch them There would be a plan, obviously, for the letting, progressive opening, and sharing of income—in essence, the terms that are used in everyday language to do everyday things. This bill now carelessly seems to give a prior right, or so-called protection, to the architect’s profession in relation to those.

I think that commonsense will apply. Probably, most people will simply ignore those meanings of the law, but it is just bad handling of Government business to end up with legislation that is so easy for a lawyer to criticise when he or she looks at it for the first time. ACT is not represented on the Government Administration Committee; I wish we did have enough entitlements to allow us to be on that committee, because the Government seems to send to it everything that it wants to slide through and pretend is unimportant. The committee simply has not done a good job on the technical aspects of the bill. The definitions are sloppy and casual, and they will require people to say: “Surely Parliament can’t have meant that. We will read it as if it doesn’t say what it actually says.”

That is the same phenomenon we are seeing at the moment in relation to the Building Act. The Minister in charge, Mr Carter, has had to stand up here and tell us all that he has instructed his officials to tell local authorities that they ought not to apply the law as it reads, and that they should simply not enforce it—in other words, do something that we have tried always to get away from constitutionally: exercise administrative discretions to overcome poorly written law.

This bill is likely to be supported, overall, by the ACT party. We will vote against the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. We will do that for the reasons so ably outlined by Mrs Pettis, the Government’s chief whip, before she realised that the Government had done a back-flip and put in a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes the good work of the select committee. We hope that Mrs Pettis will have the courage of her convictions and join us in voting down the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and in voting against New Zealand First and United Future, which I expect will also support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. It will be very gratifying indeed to see such a fine speech as that made by Mrs Pettis followed up by a vote that is in line with her own rhetoric.

MIKE WARD (Green) : The bill does not prevent anyone from designing a building; it prevents people from being misled into believing that those who are not suitably qualified to design buildings get the job of doing so. That is the purpose of this bill, and it makes good sense. Designing a building is more than just putting up something that looks good; it also has to work. Some buildings that owners have had built in recent times indicate that the protection they might expect from local authorities and building inspectors is not necessarily there. Therefore, going to an architect who has suitable qualifications makes very good sense.

Architects have the task of designing those most enjoyable spaces in our community—and we do not have enough of those kinds of buildings—making sure that people know, when they go to architects, that they are architects, that they have been trained, and that they know not just how to make things look good but how to make them work and to be weatherproof as well, and that is important.

A couple of interesting points have been raised, and I guess they have been raised with the other parties as well, by an architect in Auckland—that is, relating to the idea that the term “architect” needs to be more clearly defined. The reason is that architects not only draw up plans for buildings; there are other sorts of architects, such as software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, etc., who also draw up plans relating to buildings. It is perhaps important that that is made clear in the Supplementary Order Paper.

The term also applies to registered architects. Apparently, 40 percent of architects do not register as architects, and that is something that needs to be addressed. The Greens support this legislation. It does give a reasonable level of protection.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : United Future will support the second reading of the Architects Bill, which is to become the Registered Architects Bill. It is notable that I was part of the Government Administration Committee for the purpose of this bill. At that time a large part of the reason for joining the committee to deal with this bill was that we were dealing with the reformation of the New Zealand Institute of Architects in conjunction with the Building Bill that went through. It is important to note that there is a link between the two. That link really comes down to the terminology of “licensed building practitioner” in the Building Bill and, in particular, the need for all building practitioners, which will include architects, to be licensed building practitioners in order to do the work they want to do, in so far as it relates to the construction of buildings.

It may be worthwhile outlining both our understanding and the select committee’s understanding of the way the two relate, because I know there has been some confusion about it in the past. As I just said, all building practitioners will need to be licensed. The intention is that when it comes to design work, licensed building practitioners will be of a design category. They will be divided into classes of licence under the design category, and different classes of licensee will be entitled to do different levels of work, depending on their competence, experience, and training.

It is yet to be seen just how many classes of licence there will be under the design category, but it is envisaged there may be three or four. That was the expectation we had at the time we were considering it. We are not sure whether the licences will rise up in scale from one to four, if that is the number, or down from one to four. I will assume it is scaled upwards and that a class 1 licence will entitle very basic work to be done and a class 4 licence the most sophisticated buildings and complexes.

It is envisaged that the people who are able to obtain class 4 - type licences will be registered architects and are likely only to be registered architects. Certainly, that class of licence may be open to people who can prove they have the same competencies of registered architects, but it is hard to see how that would happen without their having registration, at least of an equivalent status to the sorts of qualifications and experience that New Zealand - trained registered architects have. So the highest level will be reserved to registered architects, and the lower levels to people such as those who are currently termed “architectural designers”, and so on downwards.

So there needed to be a dovetailing of the Architects Bill with the intention under the Building Bill to have those classes of licence. We took that into account in the select committee when we looked at this.

As we looked at the need for changes to the architectural profession and its governance, and at the need to update the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, as it will become, we took into account three aspects, as alluded to in the report we wrote. The first was consumer protection, the second was professional competencies, and the third was market competition. We were well aware of the confusion in the public sphere between people who call themselves architects, and people who call themselves architectural designers. Indeed, I recall mentioning at the time that I had spoken to a friend and asked what the difference was between an architect and an architectural designer. He was of the view that the architectural designer was the one who had the qualifications, which just shows the level of confusion that was there. And that was somebody who had actually been involved in building his own house, and one would have thought he would have known something about it.

But there is certainly a degree of confusion in relation to the term “architect”, as to who is an architect and what it means when people say they are architects. It is really that, more than anything else, that motivated the select committee to think that it was time we should be referring to “registered architects” rather than simply to “architects”.

The second reason for doing that, as previously stated, is that we have all sorts of architects now. We have landscape architects, eyelash architects, and a wide range of people who are using the term “architect”. It has become something of a generic term. The term “registered”, of course, is already well used in the professional sphere. We have registered medical practitioners. We also use the term “chartered” for chartered accountants and chartered professional engineers. So New Zealanders have become accustomed to having an adjective in front of a generic occupational term. We have registered valuers, as another example.

That then gives the public some sort of idea that the person they are dealing with has not only some professional competency but also the backing of some sort of registration board that has acknowledged that competency. It seemed to us that it was to the benefit, in fact, of the architectural profession to be using the term “registered architect”, because in the mind of the average person it denotes that that person has something more than simply a degree, or holding themselves out to be capable of something. It means they have the backing of a board that has registered them, and a professional organisation that is effectively behind the term “registered” and that is giving some credibility to what they do. It is actually in the long-term interests of architects to refer to themselves as registered architects. No doubt, under this bill they will be able to do that, because we are indeed changing the term to “registered architect”. The sooner architects who are experienced, have the necessary qualifications, and have become members of the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, refer to themselves as registered architects and not architects, the better it will be for consumer protection, and the better it will be for the architectural industry generally.

That raises the issue of what to do with people who are at a lower level of competence but who are designing basic buildings—maybe single homes that are not complex, garages, or structures of that sort—and their ability to be able to do that work, and to call themselves architects rather than architectural designers and titles of that nature, as they do now. There is a huge amount of confusion out there about people who are using that other sort of terminology. I do not think it is feasible that architects should be able to ban the use of titles like “architectural designer”. It makes for too much of a closed shop. There is a place for people who are not registered as architects to do that sort of basic work and, as I said right at the very beginning, the whole purpose of the Building Bill, in terms of the licensed building practitioner regime, is specifically to ensure that people who have competency at a certain level are able to exercise that level without having to have the high standards that registered architects require.

So that is really the issue that confronted us, and that is the reason the Government Administration Committee thought it would move to the term “registered architect”, and free up the term “architect” to be used in a generic sense.

One of the other things we had debate about, and conflict with the architects board, was the issue of who should be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of that board, and how they should be appointed. The bill provides that the Government will appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson, but the architects wanted to make those appointments themselves. I think the Government’s insistence that it appoint chairperson and deputy chairperson is right, because at the end of the day that board has quite a strong element of consumer protection. There is nothing to stop the Government appointing to those roles a person who is an architect, and in most instances I think it would certainly be advisable, for credibility’s sake, to have appointees who were knowledgable about the industry they were meant to deal with.

Nevertheless, there is a role for the Government to be involved from a consumer protection point of view, in order to ensure that the architects board does not become a closed shop, and to do such things as limit, by very strict rules, those who can enter their profession. There is the important role of allowing some degree of freedom, and not having a hierarchy created, and that is one way that that can be achieved.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : It is a pleasure to take a call on the Architects Bill, because I took part in the select committee process for dealing with it. I was invited to the join the Government Administration Committee, which was ably chaired by Dianne Yates, and we did a very extensive examination of, first of all, the weathertight homes problem and the debacle that followed that. Then, at the same time as the Building Bill was before that committee we examined the close relationship between the Architects Bill and the new Building Bill. It was during that process that we realised there was a need to link the two pieces of legislation.

That link comes about through the licensed building practitioner regime. Through that regime there is a set of classes of licence, and architects fall into one of those categories. During the select committee process we heard from numerous people for and against the retention of exclusive use of the name “architect”. As a member of the committee, I hate to disagree with my colleague Peter Brown on this issue. I understand the position he has taken, but I agree with the outcome of the select committee process. The committee agreed to deal with architects under the term “registered architect”, and to free up the term “architect” for those people who have the necessary qualifications. I give the example of people who have a qualification such as Bachelor of Architecture. Such people should be able to use the term “architect”. They have the qualification, and with a certain amount of experience they will fit into the licensed building practitioner format, so there is a place for them in that structure. Obviously, there is a means of discipline within that structure, and there is also a means of identifying what level they are capable of. The registered architects will have been accepted into their own institution, and will be recognised, accordingly, as licensed building practitioners.

It is interesting to note that during the select committee inquiry into the bill the New Zealand Institute of Architects came before us and claimed to have a certain number of members. After the select committee produced its report, there was a mad flurry of activity behind the scenes, and all the MPs on the committee were lobbied. I was one who was lobbied to try to have me change my view on it. I had a visit from Chen Palmer and Partners, along with—

Jill Pettis: How much did it cost you—$3,000?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Well, it did not cost me anything. That firm was representing the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. It was during that discussion that the New Zealand Institute of Architects claimed that its membership was 2,000, which did not tally with the numbers that had been given to us during its presentation to the select committee. During the select committee process it had said the membership was 1,000. When questioned why there was a difference in the figures, the institute agreed that its membership was 1,000, but said there were another 1,000 trying to join. I have to question why that other 1,000 were being included in its membership. When I questioned members of the institute further as why those people were not being welcomed into their club—I have to use the term “club”, because that is the way it seemed to us during the select committee process; it had become a closed shop or club type of arrangement—I learnt that some of those people either elected to remain outside of it, or were being kept outside of it, because they had disagreements with the institute. It was during that process that I realised we had it right in splitting away the registered architects, and having a separate category of architects.

I was very disappointed in the claim made by the institute that it had received dozens and dozens of letters from overseas expressing grave concern about the proposed changes. When I asked for copies of those letters, I received some. I point out that the meeting with the people from Chen Palmer and Partners took place on 19 May 2004. The date on the first letter, from Paris, is 19 May 2004. If we take the time difference into account, that was the day after our meeting. The next letter is dated 22 May 2004, and was from a New Zealand architect. Then there was another one, from Scotland, dated 20 May 2004—the letters are starting to be dated several days after the meeting—and it just goes on. Those letters are all dated after our meeting. I wondered whether the institute had actually received any of those letters beforehand—perhaps those dates were incorrectly put on them! But I was very disappointed in that process, because the institute’s representatives were making claims about the institute’s membership that were not quite correct, and then they made claims about letters they had received from overseas.

I have to question their ability to manage their institute, because we were disturbed by the fact that they were very blasé during the select committee process, but when things looked bad for them they brought in the big guns. It must have cost an awful lot of money to have Chen Palmer and Partners lobby for them.

Jill Pettis: Yes, it’s $3,000 an hour.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: How much an hour? Good heavens! For the institute’s representatives suddenly to take a heavy-handed approach like that, after the select committee had gone through its process, shows, I suspect, that they were smarting. The institute’s membership must be very angry with the representatives who did the presentation. They were very blasé and were not very forthcoming with the information they should have been presenting.

Personally, I am of the view that there should be two classes, with the criterion for registered architects being that they meet the qualifications of the Registered Architects Board, and there being another level for architects on their own. Those people will have qualifications like a Bachelor of Architecture, and they should be allowed to use that qualification, because they have earned it. They should not be excluded. They have the ability and the qualification to produce quality designs and buildings. Of course, under the Building Act and the whole process of licensed building practitioners they fall into one of the categories. Depending on their level of competence and qualification, they should be able to fit in accordingly.

The one other point I would like to raise on this part of this bill is the link between the Building Act and the Architects Bill, and the regulatory means for disciplinary action. It needs to go both ways. If registered architects fail in terms of the Building Act, then that information is passed back to the architects’ board for disciplinary action. Ordinary architects, who are not registered, are disciplined under the Building Act—they are kept in line there.

With that point, I conclude that I strongly believe that the select committee had it right. A very good examination was made by the select committee, and I congratulate Dianne Yates on the work she did on it. I am disappointed that the Government, because it has been heavily lobbied, is changing the bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that will come up later.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, which has been around for a long time. In fact, I heard the Minister for Courts say in the opening address that this bill goes hand in hand with the Building Act. Well, say no more! What have members spent most of today, under urgency, doing but trying to fix up some of the issues in the Building Act by way of legislation that does not bear any resemblance to the Building Act?

I want to draw the House’s attention to what has been happening in other countries. A review of what happened with our closest neighbour, Australia, is significant. Our Government Administration Committee made a trip to Australia, and information was supplied to us—and I took a particular interest in this matter—about a review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. It was a public inquiry. I think the points that came out of it are relevant for the debate we are having, and for the legislation that we will be voting on shortly, not to mention the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has subsequently produced.

It is interesting to note that architects have wanted a monopoly. That is why, as Mr Catchpole has said, they were quite horrified at suggestions that the term “architect” be replaced by “registered architect”. I note the architects’ submission to the select committee, dated May 2004, on the proposal in the committee’s report to remove protection of the title “architect” and, instead, to protect the title “registered architect”. They stated: “The change has taken the architectural profession by surprise and it has provoked considerable shock and concern. There is widespread agreement within the profession that this will spell the end of the longstanding reputation of high standards and professionalism that architects have earned over the years, and the end of consumer protection safeguard incorporated in the protection of the title ‘architect’.”

That is what they said; here is their submission, and that is what they said. But if we look at overseas experience, we see that in Australia, for example, architects have only a very small share of the market for design of new residences. Usually, residences are of a standard design or they are project homes. But even with large commercial projects, architects face competition from specialist project engineers, managers, and non-architect designers. That is the nature of the business they are in. So the experience of other places would suggest that architects are having to compete more and more for their share of the market, and what the architects in New Zealand are suggesting is that they need that monopoly protection.

If we look at what the recommendation of the commission was, we see that its report states that amendments “could improve current Architects Acts by reducing impediments to competition and promoting transparency and accountability of Architects Boards. In particular, introduction of a two-tier system which freed up use of the generic title ‘architect’ (and its derivatives), and applied statutory certification only to a title such as ‘registered architect’…”. That is the Australian experience.

That is one reason why the Government Administration Committee decided that “registered” is, in fact, a term that other professions use. Let us look at some of the numerous examples that have already been given. If we look in the Yellow Pages—at the accounting profession, for example—we see that there are chartered accountants and accountants. There is clear separation between roles in such professions. If we look at the profession of which I am a member, valuers, we find that there are valuers, chattel valuers, plant and machinery valuers, and—surprise, surprise—registered valuers. So the term is commonplace. And there are other professions—some of which have been mentioned, like engineers—in which there is a two-tier system that gives consumer protection. If we look at even the motor industry—and the member over there in the back row has an interest in that—we find motor vehicle dealers and licensed motor vehicle dealers.

So, having looked at those other professions, we are saying to architects that they can stand on a pedestal in the role of registered architect, but to say that one cannot be an architect in any other sense is absolutely and completely wrong, because the word “architect” is generic. The dictionary entry for the word “architect” states it means a designer who prepares plans for buildings or ships, or supervises their construction, or a person who brings about a specific thing, as in “the architect of his own fortune”—and it goes on and on. The point I make here is that “architect” is a generic term. For the building industry or people who prepare and design plans to say that only they can use the term “architect” is completely and utterly wrong. Another dictionary I looked at actually states that an architect is a person who plans, devises, or contrives the achievement of a desired result. So there may be software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, conservation architects—I could go on and on.

The point I make here is that National members are supporting the bill because those who sat around the select committee table represented various professions where there are already such tiers. Architects, lawyers, accountants, and—as in my case—valuers have a two-tier system.

One of the areas that we are concerned about—and this is a point the Minister made—is that we are not happy with the registration board approach. We have always subscribed to the view that we get the best results with a self-regulatory regime. If someone wants to be a member of an organisation, let the organisation set the rules and conditions. Why should Parliament dictate how the profession operates? That is mentioned in our report as being an important factor.

I want to bring to the House’s attention my amendment that changes very slightly some of the points made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. Originally, that Supplementary Order Paper was in John Tamihere’s hands. It has now, of course, been given to Chris Carter. When we look at the definitions in the Building Act we see that there is absolutely no correlation between them and the definitions in this bill, but this bill was actually brought in at the time when we were debating the Building Bill. The bill before us has sat on the Order Paper for months and been moved around. I want clarification that will enable us, when we come to debate the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, to tie in its intent with what is actually in the Building Act, because the Minister and other speakers have said that the two go hand in hand.

In the Building Act we have a definition of “plans and specifications”. It states that that term means: “drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed…”. So there is a clear definition in the Building Act, but there is no definition in the Architects Bill, as to what a plan is or a specification is.

The other question is what “architect” means. I have said it is a generic term that is used by many professions. The bill does not define the word “architect”. As a result, the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 provides an explicit definition for the purposes of what is to be the Registered Architects Bill, namely a “person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises construction of buildings …”. If that is to be the definition of a registered architect, then it is my view that the same definition should be in the Building Act.

• Bill read a second time.
• Name changed to Registered Architects Billname changed to Registered Architects Bill.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Registered Architects Bill that it take the bill part by part.

• Motion agreed to.