edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of Ministers to decline the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s bid to purchase a 40 percent stake in Auckland International Airport. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility of the Government. However a Minister cannot raise a matter for debate under Standing Order 380—Speaker’s ruling 161/2. A debate on a matter of urgent public importance is an opportunity for a member to hold the Government to account. The application is therefore declined. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I am becoming sick and tired of members who sit right next to the Speaker’s Chair constantly interjecting when the Speaker is giving a ruling. If it happens one more time from either side I will be asking the member to leave the House for some considerable time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Maybe I misheard but were you indicating to the House that the National Party did not submit a request for an urgent debate on Auckland International Airport? Because I am thoroughly surprised by that fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I received one application and I have ruled on that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am very much aware of what Judith Collins was saying and also the suggestion from Dr Cullen which leads me to seek leave so that the National Party can debate what its members say on this issue to have the motion that I have put before you debated now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. There is another point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis you will be leaving the Chamber unless you keep quiet during points of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting your ruling and the subsequent seeking of leave by the Rt Hon Winston Peters can we assume that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which is to be publicly released this afternoon—and there is some fanfare around that I understand—will make provision for Ministers of a Government to seek leave for urgent debates in the House about their own Government’s policy and allow them to step outside their collective responsibility to seek leave for the House to debate their Government’s own policy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. The member has been here long enough to know that the Speaker makes rulings based on the Standing Orders not on the  
Cabinet Manual 
.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am very much aware of what Judith Collins was saying and also the suggestion from Dr Cullen which leads me to seek leave so that the National Party can debate what its members say on this issue to have the motion that I have put before you debated now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. There is another point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis you will be leaving the Chamber unless you keep quiet during points of order.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of Ministers to decline the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s bid to purchase a 40 percent stake in Auckland International Airport. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility of the Government. However a Minister cannot raise a matter for debate under Standing Order 380—Speaker’s ruling 161/2. A debate on a matter of urgent public importance is an opportunity for a member to hold the Government to account. The application is therefore declined. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I am becoming sick and tired of members who sit right next to the Speaker’s Chair constantly interjecting when the Speaker is giving a ruling. If it happens one more time from either side I will be asking the member to leave the House for some considerable time.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Maybe I misheard but were you indicating to the House that the National Party did not submit a request for an urgent debate on Auckland International Airport? Because I am thoroughly surprised by that fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I received one application and I have ruled on that.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15633] 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on support for New Zealand’s public education system? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen reports advocating that funding should be almost doubled for private schools. This would remove funds from the 96 percent of pupils who participate in State education. In a recent television interview the National leader John Key called the current funding policy “elitist”. I assume this means that Mr Key does not agree with decile funding which provides extra resources for the most at risk pupils. No doubt his comments reflect that old Tory philosophy of “reward the rich punish the poor”. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other reports has the Minister seen about proposals to increase public funding for private schools? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen universally negative comments. For example the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute Frances Nelson said that National’s policy did not make sense and that “The taxpayer and the children of New Zealand deserve better”. The New Zealand Secondary Principals Council chairman Arthur Graves a fine principal from the West Coast said that the policy is “a deliberate attempt to undermine and rob public schools and essentially provide a tax break for the rich”. Under Labour education funding is up 80 percent since 1999. That is $5 billion more each year towards ensuring that every child gets a quality education—not just those children whose parents can afford to pay private school fees
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15631] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What action has the Government taken to support science and innovation in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 More than can be listed in answer to an oral answer. Perhaps the two biggest recent changes have been the 15 percent tax credit which began earlier this month and the New Zealand Fast Forward programme—a $700 million investment in the pastoral and food sector announced a month before. In addition just last night the Royal Society of New Zealand announced big changes in its role with the New Horizons programme and the new Rutherford Foundation of which the Government is a funding partner; the list goes on and on. 
Moana Mackey 
: Who else is supporting these efforts to build and promote the science sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Pretty much everyone: Business New Zealand Science New Zealand Export New Zealand the university sector Federated Farmers this sector that sector this corporate that corporate; but not the New Zealand National Party. Yesterday National said: “Helen Clark’s government has failed to recognise the true scale of the investment that this country must make and the need for these commitments to be long term.” That is a very curious statement. This is the very same National Party that voted against the research and development tax credit and the very same National Party leader who said that the $700 million endowment in the New Zealand Fast Forward programme was a gimmick.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
[Volume:646;Page:15620] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. Although that was not a point of order it did provide information for the House.
Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Points of Order 
Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention a matter that concerns the free speech rights of members of this Parliament. Yesterday in open session at the Inter-Parliamentary Union congress in Cape Town a leading delegate from the Chinese National People’s Congress tried to expunge from the record of that conference the critical comments that were previously made about occurrences in Tibet by a member of the New Zealand delegation at that conference Nandor Tanczos. I think this is a matter that you might want to look into further because it is perhaps something that you could bring up with your counterpart the Chair of the National People’s Congress in China—that this is not acceptable parliamentary behaviour and that New Zealand MPs will not be intimidated from stating their critical views. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Medal Ceremony—Notification 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. About and hour or so ago we received notification from I think the office of the Prime Minister notifying us that there was to be a medal ceremony this afternoon where the presentation of a general services medal would be made to people returning from Timor-Leste. This is exceptionally short notice for members of Parliament to be invited to what essentially is a parliamentary occasion. I point out that it was also a change of venue. Prior to the National Party hearing of this event and raising the issue the plan was for the Prime Minister to present these medals in the Labour caucus room. I wonder whether both the failure to invite other members of Parliament to this function and the decision to hold it in the Labour Party caucus room was an oversight or whether it was perhaps a severe lack of judgment by the Minister of Defence. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It came to my attention this morning that the ceremony had been arranged for that room and that representatives of other parties had not been invited. I immediately undertook to have the venue changed and to have representatives of other parties invited. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. Although that was not a point of order it did provide information for the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. About and hour or so ago we received notification from I think the office of the Prime Minister notifying us that there was to be a medal ceremony this afternoon where the presentation of a general services medal would be made to people returning from Timor-Leste. This is exceptionally short notice for members of Parliament to be invited to what essentially is a parliamentary occasion. I point out that it was also a change of venue. Prior to the National Party hearing of this event and raising the issue the plan was for the Prime Minister to present these medals in the Labour caucus room. I wonder whether both the failure to invite other members of Parliament to this function and the decision to hold it in the Labour Party caucus room was an oversight or whether it was perhaps a severe lack of judgment by the Minister of Defence.
Clark Helen: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
Clark Helen: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
[Volume:646;Page:15620] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It came to my attention this morning that the ceremony had been arranged for that room and that representatives of other parties had not been invited. I immediately undertook to have the venue changed and to have representatives of other parties invited.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech Medal Ceremony—Notification 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention a matter that concerns the free speech rights of members of this Parliament. Yesterday in open session at the Inter-Parliamentary Union congress in Cape Town a leading delegate from the Chinese National People’s Congress tried to expunge from the record of that conference the critical comments that were previously made about occurrences in Tibet by a member of the New Zealand delegation at that conference Nandor Tanczos. I think this is a matter that you might want to look into further because it is perhaps something that you could bring up with your counterpart the Chair of the National People’s Congress in China—that this is not acceptable parliamentary behaviour and that New Zealand MPs will not be intimidated from stating their critical views. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Obituaries — Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
Obituaries — Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Obituaries 
Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 11 April 2008 of the Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO who represented the electorate of Petone from 1967 to 1978 and that of Pencarrow from 1978 to 1987. He was the Minister of Immigration and Minister of Mines from 1972 to 1975 Associate Minister of Labour from 1972 to 1973 Associate Minister of Works and Development from 1972 to 1974 Postmaster-General from 1974 to 1975 Minister of Works and Development from 1984 to 1987 Minister in charge of the Earthquake and War Damage Commission from 1984 to 1986 and Associate Minister of Energy from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 11 April 2008 of the Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO who represented the electorate of Petone from 1967 to 1978 and that of Pencarrow from 1978 to 1987. He was the Minister of Immigration and Minister of Mines from 1972 to 1975 Associate Minister of Labour from 1972 to 1973 Associate Minister of Works and Development from 1972 to 1974 Postmaster-General from 1974 to 1975 Minister of Works and Development from 1984 to 1987 Minister in charge of the Earthquake and War Damage Commission from 1984 to 1986 and Associate Minister of Energy from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Standing Committee on Community Affairs from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Claire Moore is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
Visitors — Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Tuesday 15 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Standing Committee on Community Affairs from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Claire Moore is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15473] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Connell Brian: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15470] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 About a month ago a journalist for the  
Sunday Star-Times  
wrote an article lamenting that my dulcet tones had not been heard in Parliament for some time so by popular demand I am back. I suppose the fact that I am speaking tonight is also evidence that global warming really is happening. Let us think about that for a moment. 
The most significant thing I want to say on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is that the National Party opposes it and opposes it for very good reasons. I was a member of the select committee that wrote the commentary on the bill and I want to commend it to the House by reading the last paragraph of that commentary which summarises National’s position on the bill very well. Members opposite should have taken the time to read it because when they get out into their constituencies—if they have them—their constituents will be raising this issue with them. The paragraph states: “National members hold strongly to the view that consultation is not only important but necessary and that a more practical and commercial approach towards private entities should be adopted. In the absence of any changes to address our concerns National opposes the bill.” and our position certainly has not changed.
Hayes John: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15469] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member was out of order when he referred to one of my colleagues returning to the Chamber. That comment should be withdrawn. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I do not think that the member was so much remiss in the reference to the member’s return; it was rather the inference that the member was absent that would put him at odds with the Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Correct; those references should not be made. I thank Mr Hayes.
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15460] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. I am sure that members will ponder on it.
Flavell Te Ururoa: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15460] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe kia ora tatou. I did not want to interrupt the member Mr Ardern in the delivery of his speech but I am wondering whether members when they are debating this particular bill could attempt to take a little bit of care in respect of their pronunciation of Maori names. 
Once upon a time about a year ago I brought this matter to the attention of another member not out of disrespect but to make the point that as we debate place names and Maori place names at that members might like to think about proper pronunciation. I am available sitting right here for any members who want to take any lessons before they deliver their speech to help them out. Louisa Wall and Dr Pita Sharples are here as well. Kia ora.
Guy Nathan: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15444] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the Human Tissue Bill before us this evening. It is hugely important to this country and National will be supporting it. National members on the Health Committee did a lot of good work on the original member’s bill brought in by Jackie Blue. 
The reason this legislation is very important is that there is a shortage of vital organs for donation. It is pretty hard to talk about people’s inner anatomy in detail but basically there is a shortage of organs particularly kidneys livers and hearts. When people have been in an accident and are fighting for their lives we need to ensure there are enough of those vital organs available for them. When one reads through this bill it appears there is a shortage of them and unfortunately this bill also does not capture the organ donor register issue. It is a very very topical issue and I think that in time Parliament will have to revisit it. 
National will support the Human Tissue Bill because it is of vital importance. I acknowledge the hard work of the Health Committee. This bill is very complex. I have just had a read through of it and those listening may not realise that it comprises 70 pages. I believe that this Parliament will need to address the organ donor register. It is one of the most important parts that are missing from this bill and that is a challenge going forward. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Bill read a third time.
Heatley Phil: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15444] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party has been supporting this bill to and through the select committee. The bill ensures that the Government can regulate the content of voluntary disconnection guidelines that the Electricity— 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s been to select committee. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is right. We supported it being referred to the select committee we supported it coming out of the select committee and we continue to support it through this House. 
One of the issues we raised during that time was what Helen Clark herself said—this was all brought about members will recall by the Mercury Energy debacle—that Mercury Energy was in breach of the social responsibilities written into the existing law under which State-owned enterprises operate. Why then was there a rush by Labour to further regulate? We knew at that time that Labour was cultivating the perception that the law is loose and needs changing but in reality Mercury Energy and its board should not have been let off the hook that easily. 
This was a reaction that the Government took to an incident that either it should have known was going to come over the hill in a widespread way and therefore fixed it or it should have recognised that it was a one-off incident that does not require further onerous regulation. None of those questions were asked at the time. Essentially we had a family put in a tremendously difficult situation and the Prime Minister had to front up and say she would pass more regulation. There was no thought put into it at all. 
The bill went to the Commerce Committee and members worked hard to improve it—National members certainly did cooperate. The bill has now come out of select committee and we are happy to support it. But we were anxious about the ease and speed at which this Labour Government decided that regulation and more legislation would fix the problem. That is its reaction to everything: if it moves regulate it; if it moves again tax it. We cannot run a country like that because it simply grinds everyone down. It grinds them down with the costs and it grinds them down with the paperwork. 
But the select committee members as I say have improved this legislation to a point where we are happy to support this bill now and I let the House know that the National Party will be voting for it. Thank you.
Coleman Jonathan: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15442] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this Human Tissue Bill. I think the issues have been well canvassed. As members know National will be supporting the bill. I note though that there would have been a great opportunity for an organ donor register to be established. I know that this bill has provision for that to happen in the future but I listened with interest to the arguments saying that we cannot establish an organ donor register because there is no evidence that it will be effective. The very people who are making that argument will want to regulate through the Public Health Bill for fairly Draconian measures for which there is no evidence either. So there seems to be a fairly inconsistent approach there. I think maybe the Green Party and some members of the Labour Party need to look carefully at the issue of evidence to be considered before a measure is instituted. 
This bill updates the previous legislation so that the cultural needs and beliefs of our nation as we are in the 21st century are taken into account. We think that is a very good thing. The committee heard a range of submissions. There were some very compelling stories and certainly this bill was the most intellectually challenging that the Health Committee has been confronted with. 
The bill involved a great deal of questioning and reading but it is good that this legislation is coming to pass and that the House will be passing it today. My only regret is that it would have been a great opportunity for the establishment of a donor register but the door is open and I am sure a future Parliament will be called upon to consider the issue again. Those are my concluding comments and it is good this bill will be passed today.
Goodhew Jo: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15433] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the Human Tissue Bill because I have been part of the debate throughout this bill and part of the Health Committee which considered the bill. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the people in my electorate but also to the people of New Zealand who took the time and steeled themselves to make what was often an emotional plea to the committee to get it right in this bill. They were people who have in some way had their lives touched by organ transplants and who felt that this bill could make a difference for New Zealanders in the future. Those people came before the committee and told us their stories. 
I think it would be fair to say that if we looked at the front covers of the women’s magazines over the course of a year we would almost always find that in the course of a few months there is a story about transplants or the incredible gift that is made when a family manages to steel itself to donate the organs of a loved one for the benefit of many other New Zealanders. On this occasion I pay tribute to those people and say that we hope that this bill will in some way improve organ donations. I understand my colleague Dr Jackie Blue’s concerns about the lack of a register and we thank the members on the other side of the House for their assurance that that will continue to be on the page so to speak and will be considered in the future. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to pay tribute to those people. I was proud to be on the select committee and to hear those submissions at the time.
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15428] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15426] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Due to the wide public interest in this interesting bill I have received a phone call from a member of the public who would like to tell Mr Jones that the record in question was a long-playing 33 not a 78. So it is no wonder he got the speed wrong and he probably deserved the caning he got. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Strictly that is a point of information and debate not a point of order.
Finlayson Christopher: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15418] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I made it very clear when I came in here that out of respect to the House not out of respect to me I thought that I should be called by my full name. I do not see that that should be a matter of joking or smarminess in any way at all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No this is not a matter of joking. It is just that I have the formal list down here and I want to make sure that I have yours recorded correctly. Thank you.
Hobbs Marian: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15417] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I just wonder whether I could clarify something with the member. I have the official names listed down here and I hate to call people by the wrong name. The names have you listed sir as Chris Finlayson. Do you wish to be known as Christopher Finlayson?
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15415] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How much notice was given to submitters on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that they were scheduled to appear before the committee in Christchurch on Monday 7 April 2008? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 Following a refusal by the National Party to agree to commit to alternative dates last week I called a meeting on 7 April to hear Christchurch submissions. Submitters were notified of that meeting on the previous Thursday. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the member think it is appropriate to give Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd a company that is considering investing half a billion dollars in this country only 2 working days’ notice to appear before that select committee? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am advised that Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd was consulted about the timing of its submission and was content to appear at that time. Moreover it was given 30 minutes for its submission and questions and answers on it which is quite a lot longer than the normal time allotted to a submissioner.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15404] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would like a further opportunity to correct an answer. She told the House that only one copy of the  
We’re Making a Difference to Everyone  
pamphlet had been distributed. We have reports from a member of the public—just one at the moment—who said the pamphlets were on display many of them in Damien O’Connor’s office last week and that the person had picked up five of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to make any comment? There is no comment.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15405] 
7.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What are the benefits to New Zealand of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The New Zealand - China free-trade agreement signed in Beijing yesterday will result in a net benefit to New Zealanders of between $225 million and $350 million per annum for each of the next 20 years. The benefits fall in three main areas of the economy. In terms of trade and goods the free-trade agreement will result in an annual tariff saving to our exporters of $115.5 million based on current trade. In the area of trade and services the free-trade agreement gives New Zealand service suppliers an ability to operate in China generally on the same basis as domestic suppliers. In terms of investment New Zealand investments in China will get the same treatment and protection that Chinese nationals investing in China get. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What response to the free-trade agreement has the Minister seen from industry producer and union groups? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen statements welcoming the significant benefits that the free-trade agreement will provide to New Zealand for many groups including Federated Farmers Meat and Wool New Zealand Export New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and Business New Zealand. These organisations have all pointed to the benefits of securing preferential access to New Zealand’s fourth-largest export market. I have also seen comments from Peter Conway the economist with the Council of Trade Unions. He has said that the phase-down period for the remaining New Zealand tariffs was over a reasonable time period the labour memorandum gave a channel for unions to raise labour right issues and there were caps and controls in the case of temporary migration under the agreement. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What examples can the Minister provide of how specific sectors of the economy will benefit? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are many. but some of the more significant ones are that dairy has an export value of $363 million and amounts to 18 percent of New Zealand’s total exports to China and tariffs on dairy products will be phased out over a period of between 5 and 12 years; fish and other seafoods which have an export value of $90 million and amount to 4 percent of our total exports to China will be eliminated over 5 years; tariffs on wine for example are currently 14 to 30 percent and will be phased out over 5 years; and the tariff on ice cream currently 19 percent will be phased out over 5 years.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15402] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I received the material today from a member of the public who went on to the National Party website wanting to know what its party policy was on communication broadcasting and roading. This material is what came up for the member of the public. On the material it says: “Party Vote National”. I think it should be sent to the Electoral Commission to see whether it complies with the law.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15402] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First of all I take exception to the member claiming that I made it up. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked. Please withdraw and apologise. Offence has been taken at the allegation of not telling the truth.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15402] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In relation to the last question that I asked I ask whether the Minister wants to clarify her answer because it would be of interest to the House. The material she waved around is from National’s 2005 policy archive. She seems to be seriously suggesting to the House and to all parties that any material from past elections—in this case 3 years old—will have to be authorised according to the current law. Could she firstly explain where the material actually came from so that everyone knows the truth instead of what she made up; and secondly whether we will all be bound by that opinion? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to comment?
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15395] 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What progress has been made in resolving historic treaty claims in the central North Island? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Very good progress. On Friday I received a proposal from the central North Island iwi collective that was a very positive step forward in the innovative process of settling the central North Island forest lands commercial claims. This was presented at Waihi and was supported by hundreds of leaders and people from the various involved iwi. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In congratulating the Minister and the central North Island iwi collective I ask whether he can tell the House what reports he has seen on reaction to this excellent progress. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The proposal was clearly welcomed enthusiastically by the iwi involved and I indicated that it was very much the basis on which the Government would be able to talk about a final settlement. I was very pleased particularly to see a statement of support from the Maori Party and the presence in support of Te Ururoa Flavell. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about us? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: And New Zealand First whose support in all matters is always welcome including in some others we have yet to come to today. I also noticed that since the terms of agreement were signed in February Te Pumautanga o te Arawa has agreed to work with the collective to develop the settlement proposal. I would like to congratulate the iwi collective on its determination to develop a proposal that can be considered by the Crown. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on reaction to last week’s excellent progress? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was surprised to receive a report from Mr John Key stating that he was sceptical that the process would be successful in which he seemed to be unaware that he was criticising a process that is in fact iwi-led and iwi-initiated. This seems very odd as his own party member the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has lent her weight to the process and it will come as a great disappointment to the other 100000 people involved in this.
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Derek Lovell 
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Derek Lovell 
[Volume:646;Page:15393] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note with deep sadness the death of a senior firefighter of 25 years Derek Lovell who died attending a major incident in Tamahere on Saturday afternoon and convey both its profound sympathy to Mr Lovell’s family in their bereavement and wishes of a quick and full recovery to those other firefighters who were injured in the fire. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Derek Lovell 
Obituaries — Derek Lovell 
[Volume:646;Page:15393] 
Obituaries 
Derek Lovell 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note with deep sadness the death of a senior firefighter of 25 years Derek Lovell who died attending a major incident in Tamahere on Saturday afternoon and convey both its profound sympathy to Mr Lovell’s family in their bereavement and wishes of a quick and full recovery to those other firefighters who were injured in the fire. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:646;Page:15393] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Tolufuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Independent State of Samoa is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish him to be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of my Chair. 
The Hon Tolufuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:646;Page:15393] 
Tuesday 8 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Tolufuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Independent State of Samoa is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish him to be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of my Chair. 
The Hon Tolufuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Power Simon: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15781] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I start by saying I was delighted that the National Party was able to be the first party to formally support this bill at its first reading following its introduction by the Green Party as I believe it has real merits in the longer term. Most important and just to put Barbara Stewart’s mind at rest I tell members the Law and Order Committee spent some time on making sure that the legislation made it perfectly clear that its principal purpose was to provide for what was in the best interests of the child. In fact we as a committee amended the original purpose clause to make that the paramount consideration when a placement of this nature is considered by the Department of Corrections.  
It is worth spending a bit of time this evening on looking at the eligibility and screening of applicants for such placements. We did recommend that the chief executive of the department “may” make a placement not “must” make a placement upon application although it was the expectation of the select committee that where the criteria were met the chief executive would approve such a request. I cannot emphasise enough though that the primary interests of this legislation are not with the mother but with the child who would be the subject of the placement. 
Debate interrupted.
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15780] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2008 
. 
Motion agreed to.