edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10135] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to highlight two points in particular. One is about what Fonterra wants out of this and one is about the concerns expressed by other players in the dairy industry about how the Minister of Agriculture and the officials will handle those situations. Fonterra believes that the auction system must be limited to no more than 600 million litres of milk. That is its the bottom line. Also it wants the reserve price to be at least 10c per kilogram of milksolids and to set the seasonal value of the milk. It wants that to be included in this arrangement. But some of the other players the processors like Green Valley and other industry players like Cadbury’s for example have concerns that the auction system will not be fair and equitable. Also they wanted to ensure that there is consultation prior to the auction system being put in place. I think that is where the concern is. They believe that the new system particularly the auction system will not be fair and equitable to them and they want to have consultation in setting up that system. 
So I would appreciate it if the Minister as a stand-in Minister or the chair of the select committee would take a call and perhaps give some assurance to the small players the processors who are likely to buy this extra milk that the auction system will be fair for them. As I understand it there will be at least 300 auctions per week. So there will be a lot of auctions of milk and if the milk is not auctioned it will be subtracted from the total milk available. So clearly we need to have a system in place that is fair otherwise we will be back in this House asking for changes to be made. Small players in the industry have some concern about this issue. Clearly there is a concern that Fonterra will not be fair to processors and will want to charge 10c for a kilogram of milksolids at a seasonal value. Some of them are suggesting that this is an unnecessary extra cost they have to pay. I would be very keen for Shane Ardern or the Minister in the chair to be able to give an assurance to processors that they will have a fair go if you like once this auction is put in place by 1 June of this year. We want to make sure that all players in the “white gold” industry in New Zealand which is well regarded overseas have equitable access to available milk and that they feel they are part of the restructuring of the industry. 
As my colleague Damien O’Connor has said other bills are coming through regarding the capital restructuring of the industry. We must make sure that this bill and particularly the auction system is fair to all parties. At the moment we have an online auction of milk sold overseas which I understand is working very well. In the local situation we need to have an auction system that is fair to all players.
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10113] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Once again I thank honourable members for their generosity of spirit in facilitating the expeditious passage of this bill. 
Can I simply say that during the Committee stage an issue arose about the appointment of the tribunal. My understanding is that those particular matters have barely advanced so we will get on with that now. This bill is looking as though it will pass. This bill is an important bill though a very specific one and it will help the implementation process by ensuring that certain implementation tasks can be done in advance of what could be called the “go live” date of the commencement of the bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Such modern language. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: My response to the chief Opposition whip is to tell him to get with it. It is time to move on. One cannot live in the past all the time. 
I will not go through section 474 in any great detail because there are certain things the Governor-General has to do—for example appoint members including the chair to the tribunal. The Prime Minister has to do certain things the Minister has to do certain things and the Attorney-General has to do certain things with the chair of the tribunal like agree on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary in relation to proceedings involving classified information heard by the tribunal which could be a very important matter once the tribunal gets under way. Then I have to agree with the Chief Justice on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary for other proceedings involving classified information provisions. 
There is a lot of practical work that needs to done and that is why we need to get on with it as quickly as we can why the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has been needed and why I have come down to the House in sackcloth and ashes to accept blame on behalf of the Government. I will flagellate myself later on and then I will go to confession. There we have it; a mistake was made and I have manfully and with some courage accepted it. Now having accepted it we move on as I am exhorted to by the chief Government whip. I commend the bill to the House.
Fenton Darien: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10105] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I too would like to offer my thanks to the Minister Chris Finlayson for his suggestions and openness in looking for solutions. I was involved in the passing of Immigration Act 2009 as indeed many of my colleagues were. I was involved with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know the amount of work that went into this Act. Many years of work and many Ministers were involved in it. The work on the legislation was started by the previous Labour Government and we worked through lots and lots of issues that were quite difficult to deal with which we talked about when we were passing the Immigration Bill several months ago. Immigration is a very difficult area of law. It is very complex law and I suppose we can forgive the error made on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman a little bit. 
Labour was committed to the Immigration Bill. We helped to facilitate it and we worked with the select committee on it. In fact we introduced that bill when we were in Government. We want to make sure that the commencement date for section 474 is brought into effect so that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready and the rest of the Act comes into effect it is all ready to go. With those few words I am happy to support the second reading of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill.
Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10105] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to oppose the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill but I think that the way the Attorney-General has engaged with the debate is good. He is treating the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its report on New Zealand very seriously. As I said in my first reading speech I recognise that the committee saw the Immigration Act 2009 as a positive development particularly when compared with the previous Immigration Act. I know that previously the committee had been worried about things like the security risk certificate provision in the old Act. In certain respects the Immigration Act 2009 represented a step forward and the United Nations Human Rights Committee was right to recognise that. In its specificity on immigration procedures and the Act it made very clear proposals which I hope the Government will listen to to not allow refugees and asylum seekers to be imprisoned in normal prisons with other prisoners as Amir Mohebbi the person who was detained for 4 years was. 
There are some very bad additions to the Immigration Act that deny human rights. One is under section 163 of the Act where the Minister of Immigration can deport anyone whom he or she deems to constitute a threat or risk to security. It is a very short direct provision that means that people can just be whisked out of the country in no time without any right of appeal. That is something that denies basic human rights. 
The other provision that really struck the Greens when the Immigration Act went through in 2009 is in what were then clauses 271 and 289. Those provisions take away from a judge the discretion to give someone in Amir Mohebbi’s position—someone detained prior to deportation—the right to be let out on bail. There is a clear definition that the judge can let someone out on bail only in exceptional circumstances. Clause 289 said that the judge cannot determine that the period of time a person has already been detained—in Amir Mohebbi’s case 4 years—can be taken into account by the judge in granting bail. Technically someone can remain in jail for ever which is a complete denial of habeas corpus. Provisions like that run up against internationally accepted principles and the principles that are accepted by the Human Rights Committee. 
With those few words the Green Party is sticking to its original position. Thank you.
Power Simon: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10106] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for all the provisions of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10110] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow up Darien Fenton’s point which I think is relevant to the bill. If we look at section 474 which a mistake was made about and which this bill corrects we see that it talks about publishing immigration instructions and giving general instructions. A lot of immigration is put into effect not through direct legislation but through regulation like published instructions. We had the example that Darien Fenton mentioned of giving easy access to New Zealand and residency to those who are retirees. The category that Darien Fenton was I think rightly concerned about was for those who effectively buy their way in through having pots of money. They probably can do a bit of a money-go-round when they get here. Whether they actually invest in the future of our country is always a bit doubtful because there are always ways of shuffling money around in between countries and whatever. 
But without getting into that detail I ask what the underlying principle is. Should people come here to be genuine New Zealanders or just as people who are buying their way in because they happen to have a lot more money than someone else? Then there is the other aspect of that in terms of the demography of New Zealand. Do we need the piles— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Come into this debate. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: This is related to section 474(4)(a) and (b): the implementing of general instructions in particular. Do we need a whole lot of older people or is there a greater need if we are to redress the problem of too many older people in the population to put the emphasis more on younger people? 
That being said of course the Green Party is very much in favour of family completion and regulations in that respect—whether the people coming in to complete the family are old or young or brothers or sisters or whatever. We are very much in favour of that and we do not want that confused with people buying their way in just because they have tons of money. It has not really worked in New Zealand’s benefit in the other ways it has been tried and I do not think it will work in terms of allowing retired people with pots of money to come and settle just because of that fact.
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10104] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister of Immigration for his wonderful speech. From our side of the House we say that no apology is necessary—from that Minister at least. I think he has been very gracious to bite the bullet on this one. I am interested in his comments about what changes he may foresee in the legislative drafting process—and we may explore this in the Committee stage—and any recommendations or suggestions he has that could avoid this situation happening again. 
I suppose those recommendations could be perhaps that Ministers read the bill that Ministers read the Supplementary Order Paper and that Ministers take the advice of their officials. Having been a Minister of Immigration I know that there are some very venerable and highly skilled officials in the department and some very sound legal minds. I will not destroy their careers by naming them individually but there are some very very sound legal minds. I know that if Mr Finlayson had charge of this legislation he would have gone through the Supplementary Order Paper with a fine-tooth comb and cross-referenced the various pieces and clauses to ensure that it was completely quality controlled and we probably would not be in the situation we are in tonight. Equally he would have read the bill and he would have taken the advice of his officials— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If only they were all that good. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As my colleague Ruth Dyson says if only all Ministers were as good as the Attorney-General who I believe was taught by Gerry Mills as I was. I think we both passed School Certificate English but in different colleges and I know that Mr Finlayson is very diligent about his work. That is what Gerry told me before he sadly passed away. 
Like the Minister we will facilitate the passage of this legislation but we note that these are things that should be dealt with efficiently with good management and appropriately. I am gratified that the Minister who is taking the lead on this at least tonight is looking to solutions so that these errors do not occur again.
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10104] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In the first reading speeches I thought there were a number of helpful contributions. Perhaps I can be indulged to say I heard what Mr Cosgrove said about the omission. It is a matter that I myself have raised and it could well be that this kind of drafting of commencement clauses needs to be revisited. As I have said I heard what Mr Cosgrove said but at the end of the day as Alan Martin said—and Mr Cosgrove is a Cantabrian so he may not know about L V Martin—it is the putting right that counts. I think that is important to acknowledge. 
I think too that we are dealing with very good legislation. Again I heard what Mr Locke said about human rights concerns. I respect that he is a person who has a great passion for human rights and that he is one of the staunchest advocates of human rights in this place but I have to tell him that last week the United Nations Human Rights Committee commended overall the adoption of the Immigration Act in its opening statements. That committee has recognised that the Act is a good piece of work. 
Equally I think it is very important that we get on with implementing that Act it as quickly as we can. The implementation of the changes to immigration made in the Act is a sizable task that is moving full steam ahead. Section 474 which is a very complex section was included in the Act in order to allow certain implementation work to be done before the rest of the Act comes into force so the bill will bring that section into force on the day after the Royal assent. I will not go through the detail of the bill but I say a number of important tasks need to be undertaken and the sooner we get on to that the better it will be. 
I do not intend to waste the time of the House on what everyone acknowledges was a drafting error. I will apologise to the House if it helps to soothe matters but in any event I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10095] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10095] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. The Minister the Hon Jonathan Coleman is not here tonight because he and his wife have just had a child and that is a cause of great celebration. But I will not talk about squawking children too much because I certainly do not want to upset Mr Chauvel. 
I do not intend to use my full quota of speaking time for a bill that is as short as this one. I would like to take the time however to note that the Immigration Act was passed in this House last year with considerable support. Both the Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the importance of immigration and understand the importance of this Act in modernising and future-proofing the immigration legislation. Work towards implementing the Act is under way and this bill will support the continuation of that work. It will ensure that specified powers and functions in the Act can be exercised early. 
For example it will allow the Immigration and Protection Tribunal to be set up and will allow the chair of that tribunal to initiate the education and training of members before the tribunal starts to hear appeals. It will also allow the chair to begin to work for example on a code of conduct for members. The new tribunal is a cornerstone of the new Act as it will enable the streamlining of the appeals system. It has been put in place to reduce duplication and delay in the system. 
The principal Act is significant legislation and the implementation of the changes that are being introduced is indeed a sizable task. Section 474 was included in the Act to allow certain implementation work to be done by the Department of Labour before the rest of the Act comes into effect. This bill will bring that section into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. I commend this bill to the House.
Fenton Darien: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10099] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will also take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I understand that the reason the Minister of Immigration the Hon Jonathan Coleman is not available tonight is that congratulations are due. As a fellow MP in the Northcote area I put on the record my congratulations on the birth of another member of the Minister’s family. That is great and I am really pleased for him. 
As other people have said the bill is non-controversial. It fixes up an accidental omission in the Immigration Act so Labour will support it. It was made in the National Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Immigration Bill a bill that had been introduced by the previous Labour Government prior to the election. The Minister has described the bill in his aide mémoire. He said the omission of a reference to section 474 in the amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name was an unfortunate mistake. I have to say it was indeed unfortunate and it is unfortunate that the House is once again in urgency and that we are once again spending time on rushing through legislation. I reflect in particular on the undemocratic “Sack Canterbury Democracy Bill” which was passed earlier today. But as I said the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill is a minor and non-controversial amendment. 
However there are a whole lot of immigration issues that I hope I will get the opportunity to talk about in the Committee stage of this bill. In particular— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is not the Committee stage of the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I will get there Mr Henare but I just want to put it on the record in the first reading that I will want to talk about some things that have happened since the Immigration Bill was introduced such as the introduction of retirement visas for cash. We are rolling out the welcome mat to the world’s retirees and are discriminating on the basis of wealth. We are creating a “rich people’s visa” and New Zealand is to become an international retirement home. I will say a little more about that when we get to the Committee stage but in the meantime I reiterate Labour’s support for rectifying this unfortunate mistake and I give our support to its correction.
Garrett David: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10101] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It would be remiss of me not to take a call given the warm congratulations I wish to extend to the Minister of Immigration and I am reliably informed his wife. Of course those on this side of the House are more often married than in a partnership or some other loose arrangement such as the previous speaker alluded to. 
On the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill itself I do not intend to take 4 hours as the previous speaker seemed to take. It reminded me of listening to recordings of Castro speaking for 4 hours about nothing. 
Darien Fenton 
: You can sit down now then. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yeah I will very shortly. This bill is a very short bill. I think Mr Chauvel knows what I am talking about when I say that there is a very helpful High Court rule that is known as the slip rule which allows inadvertent errors to be corrected. But apparently there is nothing quite so sensible here and we have to come back as Mr Cosgrove has informed us to correct this legislation. That is a bit of a shame. 
But I do not intend to speak about Ahmed Zaoui’s history or his various potential connections. ACT will be supporting the amendment bill.
Roy Eric: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10073] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
2Commencement 
(1)Part 1 of this Act comes into force on 1 March 2011. 
(2)Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act come into force on a date appointed by the Minister of Local Government by Order in Council in accordance with section 6A(4).
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Bennett David: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10098] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill regarding section 474 and the nature of this slight change that is necessary to give it the ability to achieve its purposes. We look forward to the support of the Opposition parties in making this bill a reality tonight so that the Act which most parties in the House have worked on very hard over a number of years and have supported can become the realistic and effective legislation that everyone wants it to become. It had been many years in the making. We look forward to that support. This is a very minor amendment. I look forward to the House pushing it through. Thank you.
Hide Rodney: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10068] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am very happy to reply to the points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill particularly about the regulatory impact statement process. I am sorry I had thought I had explained that to the member but I will explain it for the Committee. I have huge respect for Lianne Dalziel and the regulatory impact work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce. Indeed the bill that I have later on under the urgency motion is virtually entirely her work which I am carrying on. 
Let me explain to members the separation of the regulatory impact statement process from the bill. This was not done lightly or for capricious reasons. It was because we have a harder hitting regulatory impact statement process as a result which is able to be commented on and actually gets what the departments think. The difficulty that I discovered when I became the Minister for Regulatory Reform was that because regulatory impact statements are attached to the bill they were seen by the department as belonging to the Minister. The view was that the regulatory impact statement was the Minister’s and the department would write a regulatory impact statement reflecting what the Minister wanted. I was very keen that we have a regulatory impact statement process that is a step removed away from the Minister so that Ministers have to get up and explain their reasoning for their bill and the regulatory impact statement is a technical analysis of the impacts of the bill. 
I wanted the departments to sign off on the regulatory impact statements. They were quite resistant to doing that and I discovered that it was because they felt a divided loyalty. On the one hand they were working for the Minister to promote what the Minister wanted then on the other hand I wanted them to write an independent report about what they thought of the bill. The matter was resolved with the chief executives and the policy advisers by separating the two out so that the regulatory impact statement would belong to the department and the bill itself would belong to the Minister. Then the departments could write an independent impact statement which the Ministers would have to get up to defend. I fully accept the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s point that the difficulty then is the availability to members of Parliament. I think we need to figure out a way around that. But I ask members to bear with me and consider the importance of having a harder hitting impact statement that Ministers have to get up to defend and an impact statement that clearly Ministers cannot direct on. So that was the logic of it; I hope it makes sense.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit clauses 64 to 68.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:10037] 
9. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: To the Minister of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both front benches that I have called Chris Auchinvole. Please show him some courtesy. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. How has the Ministry of Civil Defence enhanced its communications with the public? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The recent tsunami event of 28 February showed that the ministry’s revised 24/7 duty arrangements and process for working with the media worked well. In addition the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management website received 44000 visitors on 28 February. This compares with an average of 350 visitors a day for the rest of February. The ministry’s Twitter feed went from 166 followers to 1347 and the ministry’s RSS feed also had 2800 individuals subscribing. The significant increases over normal traffic show the usefulness of social media for civil defence purposes. However I remind members of the House that it is what the individual knows to do in time of emergency and how prepared people are that determines whether people will get through. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What other technical advances has the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management put in place? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am happy to announce that just 2 weeks ago I attended the demonstration of the Emergency Management Information System known as EMIS for use in the National Crisis Management Centre. This system will greatly enhance New Zealand’s civil defence capabilities by allowing the Crisis Management Centre and the regions to coordinate information in real time to help us better manage emergencies and thereby make New Zealand safer and more resilient.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10063] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Here we have it. The big king-hit from the Labour Opposition is that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill should actually be called the “Canterbury Regional Council (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill”. That is what the previous speaker Brendon Burns is arguing. I refer the member to the definition in clause 4 which has a very bold statement that will come as an enormous surprise to members of the Chamber. It states: “Environment Canterbury or ECan means the Canterbury Regional Council constituted by the Local Government (Canterbury Regional) Reorganisations Order 1989”. Is it not extraordinary that the one big objection that Labour has to this bill is its name? 
I simply say that we are a common-sense Government. What do people in Canterbury refer to this agency as? They refer to it as Environment Canterbury. 
Brendon Burns 
: They refer to you as a lot of things. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Burns that we have other legislation in respect of accident compensation. Do members know what Labour members called that? They called it the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act even though during Labour’s time in Government injury prevention and rehabilitation got worse. But we have a very common sense approach and we give bills names that our constituents know. Environment Canterbury is what this agency is known as and it is perfectly proper and absolutely sensible that this bill refers to the name that the vast majority of the people of Canterbury would recognise as what we are dealing with in this bill.
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10064] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I appreciate the Minister for the Environment’s attempt to give an explanation of the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I know that this is not a massive issue but it should not be underrated because it has to do with normal drafting principles. Given that we have been strong on logic and illogicality today I do think there is a problem because the definition in the interpretation clause that the Minister has read out does not come into effect until the moment that the legislation is adopted. So we have a catch 22 in logic; we have a problem. We cannot disband Environment Canterbury until we have renamed it. We have to change the name first to Canterbury Regional Council—[ 
Interruption 
] Let us just clear this up then we can move on to more important things. In fact there have been more than a few king-hits on other issues today but let us just clear this one up. We actually need to pass two separate pieces of legislation. We have to have one piece in which the interpretation clause states that henceforth Canterbury Regional Council is to be called Environment Canterbury for the purposes of future legislation before we can adopt the legislation with that name in its title.
Smith Nick: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10136] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I know that members will be nervous that I am the Acting Minister of Agriculture particularly colleagues of mine like Shane Ardern who are far more knowledgable than me on such issues. There is a healthy tension between me and the Minister of Agriculture. 
There are two points that I want to answer. Firstly a very reasonable point has been made by Ashraf Choudhary on the auctioning system the number of small players and what reassurance they can be given that the auctioning system will be fair to those businesses. I reassure him that the law requires a process of consultation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to use the regulating powers that the bill provides that process of consultation will provide some reassurance for those players that it will be fair. 
Secondly I will also make a brief comment about an amendment to clause 2 that has been tabled in my name. I confess that it is an area of the bill that I do understand properly and that is the date of commencement—that is something I can cope with. The issue is that the Governor-General will not be available to sign this bill tomorrow. The commencement date currently in the bill reported back from the Primary Production Committee is 1 April. The amendment simply changes the date of commencement from 1 April to the date of Royal assent which is likely to be the beginning of next week. It is a pragmatic little response. My big contribution to agricultural legislation will be getting the date of commencement right on the bill. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Outrageous! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an outrageous decision. I assure Damien O’Connor and other members of the Committee that that will probably be the extent of my contribution to agricultural law in this House.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10060] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (3)(b) the following paragraphs: 
“(c)the ecological recreational scientific cultural or spiritual value of waters; or 
“(d)the value of waters as a fishery or as habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms; or 
“(e)characteristics which any water body has or contributes to and which are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Maori.”
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10059] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new cross heading and clause: 
Canterbury Water Management Strategy zone committees 
45AZone committees to be elected 
(1)This section provides that the zone committees in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy must be elected by a poll of electors. 
(2)Elections for the zone committee positions must be held on the third Saturday in October 2010 as if the zone committees are community boards within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10060] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit Subpart 3 has been ruled out of order because it is the same in substance as the earlier amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 46(4); and 
to omit clause 47(2).
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10059] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10057] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
King Colin: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10058] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10131] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for all the provisions of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.