Third Readings

I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the Animal Products Amendment Bill, the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2), the Conservation Amendment Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill, the Registered Architects Amendment Bill, the Statistics Amendment Bill, the Takeovers Amendment Bill, the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill, the Wine Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a third time.

Until the Committee of the whole House stage, these amendments were progressed through the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. The 13 bills arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill remove unnecessary costs to business. Using an omnibus bill to fix up the fairly minor legislative niggles that cause these unnecessary costs is an efficient use of House time.

These 13 bills will result in the following changes. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill will remove the requirement for unnecessary registry information to be included in a public register. It also simplifies the registry process for cancelling obsolete product registrations or when there is continued non-compliance. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the Animal Products Amendment Bill, and the Wine Amendment Bill line up the recognition of agencies and persons across food safety regulated and related legislation. The Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) removes unnecessary requirements and provides greater certainty for business, and I note as Minister for Small Business that companies will be able to use electronic voting systems and shareholders will be able to participate in meetings via the internet.

The Conservation Amendment Bill provides increased certainty for concession holders and their business operations. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill modernises labelling requirement and provides more efficient and effective classification review processes. This amendment will produce savings of $53,000 per week in this industry. The Fisheries Amendment Bill improves fisheries regulation and provides a simple process for registration as a notified user. The Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill removes conflicting or unnecessary requirements on credit unions. The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill simplifies the process for cancelling or modifying radio spectrum licences. The Registered Architects Amendment Bill allows for more efficient complaints and disciplinary processes. The Statistics Amendment Bill means that non-government researchers will have equitable access to microdata. The Takeovers Amendment Bill provides greater certainty in the application of the Takeovers Code and enhances the operational efficiency of the Takeovers Panel. The Unit Trusts Amendment Bill enables accounts and financial statements to be distributed electronically to unit holders.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill clears the statute book of 31 spent Acts and, consequently, revokes three regulations. These bills all improve the regulatory environment. I commend these bills to the House.

That was a subdued approach from the member for Epsom, the Minister for Small Business—the Minister who very rarely comes to the House. When he does come here he is normally a bit more excited. One might think that the animal remedies had been applied to him, possibly a dose of horse tranquiliser or something like that, to get the Minister to that level of stability.

These bills are an interesting group of bills. Shall we start with the Statistics Amendment Bill? My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether this is of any assistance to lying people who do false returns as a result of their mayoral election campaigns. Can they fix the statistics that are lies in their returns as a result of the Statistics Amendment Bill we are currently considering? There is no answer—no answer whatsoever—from the Hon John Banks. I do not care whether he nods his head or shakes it, I just want to see John Banks indicate that this is not a back-door method of getting him to fix the false returns that he so regularly makes on election returns.

The Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) has amendments around how meetings are held. The question I have is whether this bill still requires people to have records of meetings, and whether that would help to solve the amnesia that the Minister in charge of these bills, John Banks, has about meetings. Clearly, he regularly forgets whom he has met with and when he has met with them, and I wonder whether the “Methods of holding meetings” clause within this bill would be helpful. There is another clause in here, which relates to the service of documents on offshore companies, and I just want to ask whether there is any relationship between the documents—that is, the cheques that John Banks regularly received from offshore companies, including from Mr Kim Dotcom; we will get to Skycity in a second—and whether or not having those documents made public will be helped or hindered by this, therefore checking whether there should be a declaration of self-interest on the part of the Hon John Banks in this area. There is a clause that relates to interest payable on outstanding payments. What about the money that John Banks has not paid back to Kim Dotcom, the money that he took under false pretences from Kim Dotcom? The question is whether that $50,000 will have to be returned in one cheque or two, and whether or not there should be interest. That is a question that has to be raised.

The Friendly Societies and Credit Union Amendment Bill, which we are considering, has to do with accounts that are held within organisations and the means of distribution. What I want to ask is whether there is any credit union account in the joint name of Skycity and the Hon John Banks. Is there any other method, other than the brown paper bag full of money or the envelope with a cheque in it, that John Banks has received—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to remind this member, who has been around these premises for a very long time—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member has a point of order, he should make it clearly and not—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. He should not direct his comments about how long a member has been here, or whatever. He should succinctly say what the point of order is about.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has a point of order, let us just—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: If you will allow me, the point of order is that he is straying away from the subject matter of these bills, and he is talking about matters that are totally irrelevant to the bills.

Speaking to the point of order, the Chair is, of course, the sole judge of relevance, but I would refer you to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill new section 117A, “Meaning of distribution”, inserted by clause 91A. I was talking about the distribution of—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right.

Is that enough? Are you happy?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have brought me into it by asking about my state of mind, and that is not appropriate. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I believe the member was within the parameter of a third reading speech, but that does not give him free licence. I will hear the member.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before, when the member Sam Lotu-Iiga tried to make a point of order, you cut him off rather tersely. I would ask that when—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is inappropriate to challenge the ruling in the manner that the member has done. The reason I cautioned Sam Lotu-Iiga was that he started referring to the member. He was using a point of order to cast aspersions on the member. That is the reason. Any member raising a point of order must do so tersely, and they will find that quite clearly in the Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I was not challenging your ruling, and I am not talking about your first ruling, when you said that the member went on too long. It was the second time, when you cut him off before he had even finished his point of order. He had not even spoken, with respect, and I am asking that, going forward, this side of the House is given a little bit of courtesy.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear the member, but there is no requirement for the Speaker to hear a point of order in its entirety.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wishing to relitigate the points that you have made in respect of the substance of the bill, I am mindful of Speaker’s ruling 122/7, which states: “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;”, and also of Speaker’s ruling 123/1(6), which says: “nor may a member go through the bill clause by clause;”. In order to draw the very long bow that the member is attempting to do, I am suggesting that he may be straying from those particular rulings. Although you have ruled, and I accept that, I hope that some cognisance of those particular principles could be had.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not really need the member—let me just say this. Members will be aware that I have only just assumed the Chair. I have not had an opportunity to hear in detail what the member has said. I think the points are well made: we are talking about the principles of the bill. I will hear the member.

I want to talk about the distribution to members, which is most of the substantive part of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, which is one of the bills that we are currently debating. I also want to say that I do not regard it as an insult in any way to be described as a member who is experienced in the ways of the House. That is not an aspersion. I regard that—I know I am referring to your ruling, and I probably should not—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think he is referring to your ruling. I obviously talked about his experience—or his lack of common sense, I suppose. It sort of weighs that up. But he is referring to it, and you should bring him into line, I think.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will uphold that. The member was referring to the point of order, and I invited him to get on with his speech. Please do so.

The point that I want to make right now is that John Banks takes money from anyone. John Banks takes money from any route, and I want an assurance that he is not using—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is way off beam from the contents and the topics of these bills.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that is outside the main points of a third reading speech, as outlined in Speaker’s ruling 122/7.

This bill deals with the distribution of funds. I want an assurance that, as well as receiving money in plain envelopes, money in brown paper bags, and money from Kim Dotcom, John Banks is not receiving money through credit unions.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that in order for this line of debate to be in order, it would be necessary for the member to establish that Mr Banks is indeed a member of a New Zealand credit union. I should just seek that assurance that indeed he is, in order that the debate may be brought within the scope of a third reading.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will uphold that. I think that we are talking about principles here, and I would ask the member to draw those conclusions.

I want to talk about the security of payments from credit unions, which is part of this bill, and the authorisation of those, and I want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that this bill is not being used to hide yet another payment that he has received. He has history—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I again draw you back to the substance of the debate. In order for the speech, in my view, to be within the terms of the Standing Orders, it would need to be established that the member who is being referred to in the debate is a member of the credit union. I ask again for that assurance, lest he trivialise the Speakers’ rulings.

Speaking to the point of order, I just want to totally refute that you have to prove that someone is a member of a credit union before asking the House to indicate that he is not receiving money from one.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just invite members to look at this. There is actually a suite of Speakers’ rulings on page 122 on third readings, and they do require these sorts of points: “Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.”, and “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;”. I just ask members that that be their guide when they are speaking.

The main purpose of this bill is to control the distribution of funds from credit unions. That is what this bill is about. I just want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that the distribution systems around this are sufficient to prevent dirty money getting to him the way that dirty money has got to him—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without drawing you towards Speaker’s ruling 79/1, I strongly suggest the member is now trivialising your rulings and termination must be an option.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was fine in the first part of his assertions about the requirement of the bill. To actually personalise it in the way that he did is a step beyond a third reading speech.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you, which is that in order for you be able to judge these matters, you need to be able to hear out the member, and it is up to you to interrupt members if you feel they are straying off. There are actually Speakers’ rulings about continually interrupting members during their speech—it is very clearly out of order—which is, clearly, what is happening here.

Speaking to the point of order, I think I am also seeking an assurance that you have actually looked at what is in this bill.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is almost a step too far. I am familiar with the bill, can I assure you of that. I think the points that have been made on both sides are reasonably valid. Points of order could be used for continual interruption, but also I would just caution the member that a third reading speech is a little more confined than other speeches. I have directed the member to talk about the principles of the bill.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this, but a direct accusation has been made that I am deliberately interrupting the member’s speech. I want to give the House an assurance that that is not the case, and, indeed, I want him to complete his speech.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear the member.

I think it would probably be helpful if we moved on to the next bill. This happens to be the Takeovers Amendment Bill, and it is a Brash-Banks clause in the Takeovers Amendment Bill. Is this the one they rolled Rodney Hide with? Is this the one that they rolled Rodney with, the Takeovers Amendment Bill? Would this prevent the sort of fraud that was involved in that? A combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill, which we are dealing with—do they between them—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has alleged fraud against a sitting member. That is unparliamentary.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just trying to pick up the exact context. I know that the member did reference fraud, but I did not actually pick that he tied it to a member. He said that this is the sort of fraud. In that regard, he did not tag it to a member. He is skirting very, very close to the wind, but he is just inside the boundary on that one.

The question I was going to ask is whether a combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill could be used to stop the publication of false polls by fraud in the way that Dr Brash and Mr Banks did before the last election, when they were rolling Rodney Hide. They said that a Brash-Banks - led ACT Party would, in fact, get 15 percent.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How did that work out?

Well, I think that was fraud. I think that was fraud. Brash was not a member of Parliament and Banks was not a member of Parliament at the time, but their activities were certainly a fraud on the ACT Party.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is far too much of a nuance. He is alleging fraud in relation to the member John Banks. That may be in the past before he was a member, but it is still unparliamentary to do that, given that John Banks is a sitting member.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to this point of order?

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: No, I am raising another point of order.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to rule on that one. I am listening very carefully, and I guess by inference one could claim that the member has done that. But he has actually stopped short of associating it or tagging it directly to the member.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The chief whip of the Government has asked you about whether that member is trivialising your rulings, because takeovers as pertaining to what is in this bill have nothing to do with what the member is referring to. I ask you to please ask him to point out where the relevance is to this bill, because he is clearly trifling with your rulings. I ask that termination be an option.

Speaking to the point of order, you are the sole judge of relevance, and for a member to tell you to take that into account is in itself disorderly.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a range of issues that are coming forward here. One is continual interruption and the requirement of the Speaker to make those rulings. The member who is speaking is actually, in a way, getting close enough to the line that he is baiting members. So there is a bit of to and fro on either side about this matter. The House can choose whether it wants to move forward. I invite the member to direct his comments at the bill.

Can you just give me an indication of how much longer I have got?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just over 2 minutes.

I think there are only two of the bills that I will have time to refer to. One is the Registered Architects Amendment Bill, and the question is whether, in fact, this bill will give recognition to architects and to particular houses, and whether that would help some people’s memory. I know of someone who forgot that they went to the Chrisco mansion. The other thing is the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill, and this has to do, I understand, with radio programming and spectrum licences. My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether, again, this will be helpful in the redevelopment of memory. In this particular case, when asked about his relationship with Kim Dotcom, he said: “I’m not in a relationship with that man. He is married.”

Well, I do trust that my contribution can be a bit of sense amongst the triviality of that last speech, from Trevor Mallard, which I am sure that people who have been listening to this debate have been appalled by. We who worked through this legislation in the Commerce Committee believe that it will make a significant difference to the businesses in our nation, which is what this legislation is about. It is about nothing that the previous member spoke on. It is actually about bringing some relief and some lifting of financial and regulatory burden to those businesses out there, to those New Zealanders, to those hard-working people who want to see this Parliament be effective in helping them. I think that that is what this Parliament wants to do and what the people of New Zealand want this Parliament to achieve.

So I believe that in progressing this bill here in its third reading—well, all the 13 separate bills arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill, and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill—are relieving what the Minister described as niggles, and we have surely had enough niggles here today regarding this legislation. It is going to be something where I think New Zealanders may not see the huge, massive impact of major legislation, but they will receive the benefit of all the smaller changes that take place, which in the end will have a significant benefit in the bottom lines of businesses, and that is going to release more funds, more finance, and more profits to businesses. It is going to help with employment, better public services, and, in the end, a better way of life for New Zealanders. So what is good for business has got to be good for New Zealand.

We believe that less but better regulation—not less is better, but less but better—is essential to boost New Zealand’s productivity, its growth, its international competitiveness, and its living standards.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member’s father knew how to make a speech without reading it.

Yeah, well, certainly I do not think you read your speech across the House there. Certainly, I would say that the content of this speech is probably a lot more substantial than the content of the previous one.

What New Zealand needs is a better policy environment, which is a very good reason why we have National as the leading party in this Government. We are bringing a better policy environment for businesses in New Zealand, which is going to create the economic advantage that we need. We live so far away from most of our markets. We live so far away from the great populations of the world in our isolation here, and in our geographical distance, that it is imperative and important that we have a very good, robust, positive, attractive policy environment in order to retain talent—that mobile talent that can go anywhere in the world.

We know that all New Zealanders do an OE. Of course, you hear the haranguing around that, but, you know, many New Zealanders go overseas and then return with global skills and global connections. All of that brings an improvement into the capability of our businesses here in New Zealand. It is important to have this environment, which attracts people to business in this country.

In fact, back in April Bill English went to Australia, and there many Australian businesses were very, very jealous of the environment that has been created here in New Zealand. We know that investment is coming this way. It is because of what we are doing—it is because we are working systematically through the regulations that work in the business sphere. In particular, we are working through this systematically to identify those areas that are redundant and those areas that are constrictive, with a determination that we are going to have regulation that is robust, that is essential, that is reasonable, and that has rigorousness about it. We are also going to remove those redundant pieces of legislation that just clutter the business environment. All of these are part of our plan to improve the environment for New Zealand businesses.

We touched on this last night as we went through Part 5 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, where we looked at the amendment to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. It is just a very simple measure that is going to bring significant savings to that industry. Instead of having to take a DVD slip out of its cover and then adhere a rating classification to it, those in the industry are now able to print this at the source of supply, and this is going to make a significant saving to them.

Comment has been made that we could have progressed this legislation a little bit faster in order to bring that benefit to people. But I understand that that area of the industry approached the previous Labour Government, year after year, and then, finally, it thought that this was a good idea. So it has taken a long time to bring that sort of relief and that sort of benefit to that sector. It is important that these things happen, in order to build this better policy environment and in order to bring the success that people aspire to in this country. We believe that better regulation and less regulation is essential. This is what we are working on as a Government.

One of the changes that we have made is a new system for assessing the health of New Zealand’s regulatory regimes. This will help improve economic performance over the longer term. The results of preliminary assessments are included in a report called The Best Practice Regulation Model: Principles and Assessments, which was released on the Treasury website this month, August 2012. This new model for assessing major pieces of regulation considers whether each regime gives appropriate weighting to factors that can help improve economic performance, competition, innovation, exports, compliance costs, and trade and investment openness.

In 2009 the Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation, Less Regulation made two major commitments. We said: “We will introduce new regulation only when we are satisfied that it is required, reasonable, and robust.” The second commitment is: “We will review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively costly.” So I am very pleased to stand and support this legislation in its third reading. Thank you.

I started off talking in the House last night on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill by saying that it was surreal. It was surreal speaking on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist. Well, last night certainly turned into a surreal experience when it was more like karaoke than normal practice of the House, and we certainly had some challenges before us. Certainly parts of the discussion and debate last night deteriorated into farce due to the issues that we were confronted with. But the real reason why it was so surreal was because the Minister for Regulatory Reform, who had brought this bill to the House—the latest Minister to bring this bill to the House—was John Banks, who, as been referenced by a number of speakers, has certainly been suffering from documented memory loss.

I just want to refer to what the previous speaker said on a couple of issues, because he said that there have been a lot of niggles raised on this side of the House about this legislation and the issues that lie in behind. I would just like to say to him that they are more than niggles. This legislation is about tinkering with regulatory reform, but the niggles that the members on that side of the House seem to have such an issue with are serious issues. They are issues of probity—the probity of a Minister and the ability of that Minister to actually bring legislation before the House and have credibility on that. They are issues about the principles of regulatory reform, what those principles actually mean, and whether or not the Minister who brought this legislation to the House has the credibility to bring those issues before the House.

The member on the other side of the House also talked about a better policy environment. Well, you know, that is a bit of a joke, really, when you think about it, because the better policy environment that we have at the moment includes things that that Minister who has brought this legislation to the House has got some sort of responsibility for. It includes charter schools—charter schools, which are actually using taxpayers’ money and interfering with our important State school system. He has got memory loss. He has got memory loss about donations. This legislation does contain a lot of information and a lot of change around the probity of how organisations such as New Zealand credit unions operate.

Cronyism is another major issue that is before this House and it is before this House again today. The latest issue of cronyism is around the appointment of Wayne Mapp’s private secretary to a position that is doubtful—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have had some very clear instruction as to what the topic that is acceptable to this debate is, and the member has strayed outside it. I ask her to return to the third reading speech.

I will turn to the legislation, because the legislation in the third reading does make some important changes.

I would like to reiterate that this legislation is actually legislation that came out of the work that was done by the previous Labour Government. This legislation sat on the Order Paper for several years and has not been progressed despite resulting in some quite significant money saving that could actually have already been taking place. There are four particular issues that it deals with. The Companies Act is amended and it will save money on using electronic shareholder participation. That could have been in place for the last 2 years if this Government had not lagged on bringing this legislation back to the House. The Unit Trusts Amendment Bill amends the Unit Trusts Act so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. We had a lot of discussion last night about amending the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act. Millions of dollars could have been saved on this in the last couple of years. Then this legislation aligns inconsistency in all food-related Acts. So we support this legislation. It came out of work that we did and that we did in the previous Government. It should have been brought before this House before now, and that Government and that Minister who brought it before the House have some serious issues.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the 13 bills that the Regulatory Reform Bill has been broken into. I want to talk about just a couple of aspects. I do not want to talk about all of the different 13 amendment bills that are contained here. I just want to focus on a couple of them.

Before we start, I say that it was interesting to hear Jonathan Young’s speech. I thought that Jonathan Young made an interesting speech about the philosophical framework for regulatory reform that the Government has adopted. I thought it was a useful exposition, actually, of where the Government comes from. In many respects I think that many people would agree with what Jonathan Young said in the sense that he was saying, well, how do we try to reduce the negative impacts of regulation on the operation of business? I think it is certainly true that there are regulations that exist that do have negative implications for business, and I think we would all agree that there is a case for amending or reforming those to make sure they do not have that effect.

I guess, in a way, the Government does not have a lot on its economic agenda beyond that kind of microeconomic reform. So in some ways that approach typifies the Government’s approach, which is microeconomic reform, and the Government’s approach overall is to do these kinds of microeconomic reforms in the hope that by keeping hands off more generally there will be some kind of great economic miracle.

To some degree, there is no question that there is a role for that kind of economic approach. The problem, I think, is, more broadly, that if you look at macroeconomic policy, the Government’s approach to macroeconomic policy more generally is quite problematic. Aside from picking a few winners like the mining industry, it is not assisting some of our most important export sectors. So although this legislation before us, I think, makes some contribution, it has to be seen in the broader picture of the Government’s economic strategy, which is very much lacking and is, of course, reflected in the poor economic performance of New Zealand under this Government. Of course, accepting that there have been external factors that have influenced the economic performance of New Zealand as well, undoubtedly, the fact that the Government lacks an economic strategy more generally, I think, has been problematic.

In terms of the regulatory reform legislation, I want to talk first about the amendments to the concessions process for the Department of Conservation estate in the Conservation Amendment Bill. That is the one bill that we will be voting against. We will be voting in favour of all the other amendment bills, but that is the one that we are voting against. A concession is the right to access or use parts of the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes. It is very important that there is a concessions process so that parts of the Department of Conservation estate can be used for commercial purposes, but the Green Party believes it is fundamental that the ecological or biodiversity bottom lines come first. So the fundamental starting point has to be that we protect the ecological or environmental values of the Department of Conservation estate first. Concessions, or the ability to use the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes, are secondary to that. That is fundamental to our approach to the Department of Conservation estate.

Essentially, what this bill does is make it harder for the Department of Conservation to protect those fundamental environmental or ecological values when it is considering applications to use the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes. For that reason we are voting against that amendment bill. When you think about it—and I think this is where it applies to the kind of philosophical approach to regulation that Jonathan Young was outlining—if we do not have regulations that fundamentally protect the Department of Conservation estate, if we do not have those regulations in place, then we will undermine the macro picture of what is one of the great opportunities or benefits that New Zealand has economically, which is our natural environment.

Look at the tourism industry, which is totally built on clean, green New Zealand, and look at our primary produce exports, which are entirely built on a clean, green, and safe New Zealand. Those things are built on the environmental integrity or the perception of environmental integrity particularly associated with protecting the conservation estate. So if our regulatory framework does not fundamentally protect the conservation estate, then we will undermine our economy as well as undermine the biodiversity values that we think are important.

I mean, when you think about who the great builders of the New Zealand economy have been, actually it has been the greenies who, generation after generation, have protected the New Zealand environment. If you were to name one person who has made a huge contribution to the New Zealand economy, you could pick Kevin Smith, one of the campaigners who protected the West Coast of the South Island against the opposition of many of the Governments of New Zealand that wanted to allow the destruction of the West Coast environment. People like Kevin played a fundamental role in actually building the foundations of our economy, because by protecting the natural environment they basically protected the foundations of both the tourism industry and the primary production sector.

So when we come to look at these kinds of regulatory reforms, if, as is the case in this bill, the regulatory reforms make it harder for the Department of Conservation to protect the conservation estate, essentially not only do they make it harder to protect the biodiversity values that are important to New Zealanders and to the New Zealand identity but they also make it harder to protect the foundation of the New Zealand economy. So for that reason we do not support those changes—because they tilt the balance against protecting the natural environment

Looking at the philosophical approach to regulatory reform, if you do not have strong regulations that protect the natural environment, then you do not protect the foundations of our economy. And I think that that kind of short-term thinking is epitomised by the National Party in relation to this. National members think, oh well, a bit of environmental degradation for a bit of economic growth. That is fine. So we should have regulations that facilitate that. The Green Party takes a much more long-term approach, which says we need regulations that protect the natural environment for the long term, and not only does that protect the biodiversity and ecological values that are important to us but in the long term it also protects our economy, because our economy is built on our environment. So we need a strong regulatory framework to protect that environment.

The second part of this regulatory reform legislation that I want to talk about is the amendments to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act. These are very good and important changes, and the Green Party is very pleased that these changes are here in the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill. There is a multitude of changes, but, basically, what they do is facilitate the ability of the credit unions to compete more effectively.

Credit unions are, I believe, an important part of the financial system in New Zealand. They provide a small but significant competition to some of the larger institutions. Because of the way that privatisation was run in the 1980s and 1990s we ended up with a banking sector that is extremely problematic and dominated by the Australian-owned banks.

Having the Australian-owned banks dominating the finance sector has been a real problem for New Zealand. It has been a problem in terms of competition—it is only with the emergence of Kiwibank that we have had serious competition in the banking sector; the Australian-owned banks were acting in a monopolistic manner in reducing competition—and it has also been a problem in terms of tax. The Australian-owned banks have been illegally and unlawfully avoiding tax. They unlawfully avoided $2 billion worth of tax, and the Government had to spend $50 million in court cases to get it back off them. So having the credit unions freed up so that they can compete better with the banks is important.

It is, of course, important that we have proper prudential regulations in place, to make sure that the credit unions do operate in a way that is safe for their investors, but it is also important that they be freed up so they can at least be on a level playing field with the big banks, so that they can compete with them, and so that we do get some degree of competition in the banking and financial services sector, particularly for lower income New Zealanders so that they do not get ripped off by the big Australian banks, which, of course, has been the history since the extremely poor privatisations that happened in New Zealand.

So those are two pieces of legislation—there is the bit around changing the rules around concessions and the commercial use of the Department of Conservation estate, which we do not support because they tilt the balance against the environment, and there are the amendments around the credit unions, which give them more of a chance to compete and are, I think, very, very good changes. So we will be supporting all the legislation except those changes around conservation. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.