edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this debate in respect of the comments that have been made about KiwiRail. There has been some talk about people whakapapa-ing back to their railway destiny in terms of the future of KiwiRail. I started my interest in politics as a consequence of an experience with the railways. Rather than talking about dads or somebody else I was working on a rail bridge project in North Canterbury. Let me give you the experience each day: each day we were building the bridge and there were five of us contractors there to build the bridge. Every day a bus full of railway workers—26 of them—came to supervise and ensure that we did not get in the way of the trains. It was a total disgrace. In fact what actually happened was that I was so appalled that this was going on in my country that I borrowed my brother’s VHS recorder—he had one of those newfangled recorders—and sent it to Mr Quigley who was then the Minister of Railways. He invited me to become part of Young Nationals and the rest is history. 
The reason this is relevant to this debate about rail is that what has been the death of rail is the interference of politicians in running a good business. I am appalled that members in this day and age somehow believe that it is politicians who should be making the decisions about the sorts of locomotives that KiwiRail should be buying. If that is the sort of backwards culture that we are going to go into we are going to drag this country back to the sort of Greek rail system that has dragged that country into bankruptcy. 
You see the Government plan that has been set down around the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan is actually about— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why did you fire John Judge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —Mr O’Connor—running rail as a proper business. That means not having decisions about the types of locomotives and the number of staff who are employed—all of those decisions—being made by politicians with agendas a long way from making a successful business. 
I plead with members opposite and with this Committee to learn the lessons of history around railway. The deal that the previous Government did to pay over $600 million for rail in 2008 was totally driven by politics it was a dog of a deal for the taxpayer and it cost this country a fortune. I urge this Parliament if it really wants to have a quality transport system and if it really wants to have a railway system that can serve this country well to let us appoint a qualified robust board of directors. Let them run that enterprise in a proper way rather than the sort of politics that members opposite want to drag railways back into and that will destroy that important part of our transport infrastructure. 
Vote agreed to.
Henare Tau: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regards to the comments made earlier about my New Zealand Railways whakapapa. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Back in the 1920s my grandfather was a locomotive driver here in Wellington for some 25 years. He had three sons. His oldest son Mita Robert Hoturoa Henare was actually general manager of the New Zealand Railways Department the first Maori to be head of a New Zealand Government department outside the Department of Maori Affairs. He was also the first Maori to graduate as an engineer from Auckland University. His son— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: You clearly missed your calling. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually you are not supposed to interrupt. 
His other son my father was Paul William Henare who was a plumber on the New Zealand Railways. His other brother my uncle Maui David Henare was an electrician on the New Zealand Railways. All three sons of Mita Te Tai Henare also have sons on the railways including my two brothers one an electrician and one now in Perth who is driving trains.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4196. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Vote agreed to.
Banks John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Banks John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have listened to the diatribe from the Green member of Parliament Steffan Browning. I thought it was important that I take a call at this juncture to say to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service over these matters that I support the activities of the intelligence agencies of this country. I want to put upon record the fact that I am a member of the Cabinet committee on intelligence and security so we will not be discussing those matters. 
What I will say is that the intelligence agencies of this country do a very good job in the interests of this nation’s intelligence security. I want to place that on record today on behalf of the ACT Party and I want to say to the Minister in charge of the intelligence agencies both security and intelligence that the workers and the people inside those agencies work hard in the best interests of the economic security of this country and security for citizens of this country. They work tirelessly in the pursuit of delivering for this nation economic sovereignty and you cannot have economic sovereignty if you have foreign agencies spying on this country without counter-intelligence agencies like the ones that we are talking about today. 
I want you to know that the ACT Party and people on this side of the Chamber believe in strong robust security agencies in the best interests of this country and we support them totally and denounce the myopic backward-looking views of the Green Party around security and intelligence. If matters of security and intelligence were left to the Green Party then we would be taken advantage of by many many nations that would use the barriers and infiltrate us in terms of economic security in particular. So I want to say to the security agencies which work tirelessly on behalf of this country that we appreciate you we thank you we applaud you and we support you.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4174. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Good afternoon honourable members. Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Honourable members—and my good friend the honourable member Trevor Mallard; thank you for the comments about my wonderful tie—the House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All votes are available for debate and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4216. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Vote Science and Innovation stand part of the schedules. Those who are of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I have already put the question. It is gone. You were too slow. All I can suggest is that the member seek leave.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I am taking a short call on the tertiary education estimates— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not called the member yet. I have not called the member. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh! I thought you had. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I see you were out of the starting gates really early this time. I call the honourable member. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh you have called me without naming me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have called the honourable member.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4158. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that “The asset sales programme remains on track”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Of course I agree with the Minister of Finance a busy and influential Minister especially since we have just started what he calls negotiations over next year’s health budget. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then is he prepared to rule out a delay in the float which he promised would be in the third quarter of this year even despite 80 percent of New Zealanders being opposed to the sale? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the Prime Minister said today a delay cannot be ruled out but it is too early to speculate. We are currently considering how we can incorporate the tribunal’s processes within the broad time line we are working towards. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then was it his Government’s plan to inflame the Maori water rights issue and have the Waitangi Tribunal request a delay of the float of Mighty River Power—was that part of the plan? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Certainly it is not part of the plan but it is not to say that it is not expected. I think what is more important for New Zealanders is to find out whether the Labour Party supports the Maori Council claim on the water or not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then why has his Government cobbled together an uncosted loyalty bonus share scheme potentially costing hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money as outlined by one of his own Government agencies in order to save face for the Prime Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think what is quite clear is the fact that the use of loyalty shares is not unusual in these sorts of floats of Government-owned businesses. In fact I think I saw a report that in Finland nine of the 14 floats involved loyalty shares—Finland. But the key question that needs to be answered in this House yes or no is: does Labour support the Maori Council claim on ownership of water yes or no?
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What investments are planned for improving health facilities in Wairoa? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The go-ahead has been given by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for a $5 million integrated family health centre in Wairoa. This medical facility on the Wairoa Hospital site will have a new clinical services block a complete refurbishment of other areas to integrate mental and community health services a complete IT upgrade and an ambulance bay development. It will be incorporating significant numbers of health professionals: occupational health physio community health Maori health public health diabetes—the list goes on. The building is expected to be completed within a year and I would like to congratulate the community and the district health board on their work futureproofing health services for the people of Wairoa. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How is it that this district health board which only 4 years ago was in financial deficit and getting worse is now able to invest $5 million in an integrated health centre in Wairoa? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What the Hawke’s Bay board has shown is that a financial turn-round can be achieved when a district health board focuses on getting its finances into balance. With this achieved this district health board has gained the ability to determine how it invests its health resources in its community. This is in complete contrast to the out-of-control rapidly rising $150 million worth of deficits owed by district health boards that were left by the failed outgoing Labour Government. Turning round those deficits from a track heading towards $200 million has been a major achievement. I think the Hawke’s Bay board is a great example that expanded services can be delivered to local communities with the elimination of deficits.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4155. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has he received on renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The National-led Government is focused on ensuring that renewable electricity generation thrives here in our country. I am pleased to report that the ministry has said that renewable electricity generation was 77 percent in 2011 up from 74 percent in 2010. Although it is important to bear in mind that the level of renewable electricity fluctuates because of a number of factors including lake levels I am pleased to see us well on our way towards achieving the goal of 90 percent renewable generation by 2025. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has he seen any forecasts on the future of renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes. Forecasting by the Electricity Authority shows that almost 3700 megawatts of renewable generation is consented but not yet built. To put this in perspective this implies that there are enough consented renewable generation projects to meet our demand growth out past 2030. On this basis it is clear that the renewable energy sector in New Zealand has a strong future.
Sharples Pita: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sharples Pita: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I made in the House yesterday.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yesterday during question No. 5 the member for Ikaroa-Rawhiti asked me this supplementary question: “What advice did he give to the Minister of Finance in so far as the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”. I responded: “As Minister I did not give any advice to the Minister of Finance on that particular point.” In reviewing my notes I find that I actually did provide the Minister of Finance advice on this matter. My advice was to bind the 49 percent shareholding interest on top of binding the Crown in line with the Treaty clauses found in our free-trade agreements written into the deeds. I recommended the wording “that shareholders of enterprises should do nothing to prevent the Government from meeting their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 1 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I made in the House yesterday.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yesterday during question No. 5 the member for Ikaroa-Rawhiti asked me this supplementary question: “What advice did he give to the Minister of Finance in so far as the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”. I responded: “As Minister I did not give any advice to the Minister of Finance on that particular point.” In reviewing my notes I find that I actually did provide the Minister of Finance advice on this matter. My advice was to bind the 49 percent shareholding interest on top of binding the Crown in line with the Treaty clauses found in our free-trade agreements written into the deeds. I recommended the wording “that shareholders of enterprises should do nothing to prevent the Government from meeting their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4158. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What advice has she received regarding the implementation of the new adventure activities regulations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Our international reputation is tied to our adventure tourism sector with around 36 percent of international tourists taking part in an adventure activity whilst in New Zealand. That is why in November last year we introduced new regulations designed to ensure that adventure activity operators comply with the highest of safety standards. I am pleased to report that an estimated 99 percent of adventure tourism operators have now notified the Labour Group of their activity following a joint effort between Government and the industry. This is a great start towards ensuring every operator is part of a safe and robust adventure activity regime by 2014. 
Louise Upston 
: What are the next steps towards full implementation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Earlier this week the first 16 safety auditors were announced. This is a key step in enabling operators to fully register under the new regulations. I am pleased to report that the first of the activity-specific guidelines—for canyoning—is due for release in the coming weeks with a further two caving and indoor rock climbing to follow soon after. I have also had feedback from the industry that the recently launched Support Adventure website is enjoying a high level of usage and support. These are important steps to help ensure the safety of participants and the protection of New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and exciting tourist destination which is central to New Zealand’s future economic success.
Roy Eric: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Given that the next item on the Order Paper is another Committee stage and that the House cannot convene in Committee within 5 minutes of the hour of rising it remains for me to announce that the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Because we are doing it clause by clause and not part by part clause 1 is actually the title. Although what the member is saying is interesting there is a way around this that would allow you to continue but it is up to the Minister or a Government member to seek leave that the clauses be taken as one question.
Vote: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 92 and 94 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Roy Eric: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! The member will leave the Chamber if he does that again. When a member votes he is to vote only yes or no and his number. I require him to do it again.
Henare Tau: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of Charles Chauvel to extend the bill to emergency health and fire service personnel and to those on Supplementary Order Paper 9 in the name of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor to extend the bill to those engaged in enforcement duties. 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Eric: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Having passed those amendments Supplementary Order Paper 94 makes Denis O’Rourke’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 33 out of order because it is inconsistent with the decision we have just made. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Foss Craig: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Just picking up on previous speakers’ general sentiments I again acknowledge the contributions made by speakers to this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill in this session or in the previous Committee stage session and at the select committee—those who are on the Commerce Committee and those who have passed before us. 
I fully acknowledge that the bill was introduced by Lianne Dalziel under the previous Labour Government. My colleague Mr Power picked it up and with his very very busy legislative programme—he also being Minister of Justice—I inherited the bill in November or December of last year when I got my warrant. Over the 5 or 6 months we have been able to deal with this bill I think we have done very well. 
The title of the bill is the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. As the previous speaker just said so many of these bills are interlinked. Of course they reference the Commerce Commission and the very very important role it plays. One or two speakers have commented on the delay or the time that it has taken to bring this bill here. I just note that if it was not for some of that delay we would not have Supplementary Order Paper 274 which is dated 16 August 2011 and brings in telecommunications regulators’ exchanges of information. So maybe there was a bit of an upside to some of the time taken. 
The bill is aptly named the “International Co-operation and Fees” Bill particularly cooperation with Australia and perhaps with other jurisdictions or Government bodies as the bill prescribes as we go through. The name also reflects the cooperation on this and many commerce bills around and across the House generally. I acknowledge and thank members and parties for their cooperation on this legislation which at the end of the day is better and more robust legislation for New Zealand in 2012.
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4095. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
This bill and I will not go into Part 1 of it is basically about greater cooperation between New Zealand and particularly Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure that things are properly investigated between the two commissions and to stamp out any improprieties in terms of commerce particularly between Australia and New Zealand. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the best part of 3 or 4 years to go through to this point. It does reflect poorly on the legislative process that in that period of time who knows what sorts of things could have occurred that otherwise might have been picked up had this bill been through by now. I am pleased that Minister Foss the Minister of Commerce has now moved this on—being a good Hawke’s Bay man like me we do pick up the ball and run with it like a good Magpies rugby player. I am pleased that this bill has been picked up by the Minister and is now being pushed through. 
In terms of Part 2 in relation to simply some amendments to the Commerce Act 1986 these are understandable just in terms as the Minister said of determining any remission of fees and any reduction in fees and that is understandable. So in terms of that New Zealand First certainly is in support of this bill. This is again a good initiative to clamp down on some situations under the Commerce Act and the Commerce Commission being able to investigate. It will allow greater transparency and ensure that there can be proper investigations and also charges made to overseas agencies requiring information of our Commerce Commission and vice versa. 
This is a good piece of legislation. As we have said in the past New Zealand First will support Government legislation that is to the benefit of New Zealand and we believe that this is good legislation. It was started by the former Labour Government and carried on through by the National Government but in terms of this bill New Zealand First does support it and the sooner this is passed by the House the better. Thank you.
Williams Andrew: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4095. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to Part 2 of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill 2008. It is that year 2008 that does somewhat concern us also in that this piece of legislation this bill was first put forward on 9 September 2008 by the Hon Lianne Dalziel when there was still a Labour Government. It is somewhat concerning that it was then brought to this House for its first reading on 25 May 2010 by the Hon Simon Power and it is now 31 July 2012.
Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a further question in relation to the matter that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce has just addressed and seek some further clarification. In my speech on Part 1 I was told clearly by the Chairperson at the time not the current one that I could not raise matters in relation to fees. I was raising a matter in relation to a general principle in the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and I think on that occasion I failed to articulate quite how it was not fees but the principle I was addressing. But having taken that advice I will plant my question firmly in the clause discussing the fees. It relates to those exemptions and the more general principle of who should receive them; the Minister has mentioned small and medium enterprises. 
The more general point is that overseas regulators consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. This is about reciprocity and it goes both ways. My question is really about the extent and nature of the consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade where there are requests for its assistance in matters that have significant international trade consequences for New Zealand and whether this exemption could apply in those cases and what the threshold would be when we say that the matter must be significant. In Part 1 of the bill if I can refer to that because I think it does relate to this it says in section 99H(2A) in clause 6: “If the Commission considers after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that a request for compulsorily acquired information or investigative assistance may have significant trade consequences for New Zealand the Commission must refer the matter to the Minister of Trade.” So in respect of those fees I am wondering what the test for significance is and how that will be applied. That is the heart of my question and I invite the Minister’s response on it. 
Labour will be supporting this legislation because we believe that the principles it is addressing are important and ought to be addressed. The legislation has been a long time in coming. As the Minister referred to earlier we have had a lengthy debate on this matter but it is important legislation and it aligns us with Australia which passed similar legislation in 2007.
Roy Eric: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think David Clark almost had the call before. I will give it to him now.
O'Connor Damien: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Indeed it is an honour that I get to speak on this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have to say to the members of the Commerce Commission who have heard me criticise them over the dairy industry legislation that perhaps I should apologise and say that without them without a robust Commerce Commission in this country we would be a lot worse off. I encourage the Minister for Primary Industries in whatever he does following through with this bill to give the commission the resources and to give it the proper legislation to ensure that we have open true competition in this country but in a way that actually enhances our ability to develop our economy and all the opportunities in it. 
I will not take too long because I know that I have colleagues who are just busting to get up and speak about this piece of legislation and they will probably speak with a lot more wisdom and knowledge. But I do understand the need to have robust laws. At times in this country we have been called the Wild West of the Western World. We have had lax laws that have not prevented rorts and have not secured and protected consumers or other people involved in this. This bill of course deals with fees and cooperation and we like to see that operate on an international basis as this bill will do. So I will now hand over to the next speaker and say that we welcome the passage of this bill.
Vote: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Roy Eric: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look if members want to call a party vote they must call it. So the motion is agreed to. Part 3 as amended will stand part.
Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I want to commend the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce for his work on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and also all of those who have already worked on this bill previously and suggest—but largely in jest—that the bill might be called something different perhaps the “Commerce Commission (Extensive Local and International Co-operation and Fees) Bill”. There has been a great deal of cooperation in pulling this bill together over as the Minister has said a long period of time. It is illustrative of the way in which this House can function in a way that is constructive. Often the debates we have are constructive but they may sometimes appear less constructive than they actually are. Here is a clear occasion where many of us agree that these are sensible steps that need to be taken. We might sometimes debate the extent of them and the timing of these changes but we wish to support them across the House. 
Therefore I wish to congratulate the Minister and all of those including the Hon Lianne Dalziel who have committed their own efforts to getting this legislation through and into its final form. It will be good to bring us into alignment with Australia which passed similar legislation around 5 years ago. So my congratulations go to the Minister and to all of those who have worked on the bill previously. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Amendment Bill the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill the Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 26. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member and the member is quite right again. They are matters that involve the administrative responsibility of the Government. I accept that point and it is well made. However with this particular issue and the Waitangi Tribunal the points I have covered remain in that it is statutorily different from a commission of inquiry set up by the Government. The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body and that is what makes it rather different. However I am aware of what the member is pointing out—that often the benefit of a debate in the House would be rather greater on some occasions prior to a response occurring. I can hear where the member is going and that is why I do not want to pre-empt any possibilities because any application must be considered on its own merits—and I do not want to pre-empt any possibilities. But I have noted the point the member made and I can understand why it was made.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again we are not relitigating with the hope of getting the urgent debate but relitigating or trying to make points for the future. The Standing Orders do not say that these debates result from decisions of the Government—the urgent matter does not have to be a decision of the Government. I think sometimes you have been coming back to that in your rulings when that is not a requirement. As in the point I made earlier some of us hope that Parliament might be able to in the future influence decisions of the Government that are required to be made.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously when the Government makes such a decision that is a decision of the Government and if an application were to be made I would have to consider it on its merits in terms of what was announced the urgency of the matter and all that kind of thing. But I think the member again raises a perfectly fair point because that would be an action of the Government.
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would that mean then that when the Government takes a decision as to how it responds to the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision we could make an application which you would then determine on its merits as to whether that decision in response to the Waitangi Tribunal deserved the urgent consideration of the House?
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the points the member has made. His point of order is well considered. I have in fact because of the particular nature of the letter submitted to me that raised this issue actually already had a look at the matters the member has just raised. I think the crux of it boils down to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal is an independent statutory body. It may have the powers of a commission of inquiry but it is not a commission of inquiry of the type to which the member referred in his application which was a commission set up by Ministers to examine matters of Government administration—and in this particular case the member referred to police conduct. Clearly the Government is answerable for the findings of such commissions of inquiry that have been set up by the Government. 
But with regard to the Waitangi Tribunal the Government is responsible only for its own response to the tribunal’s recommendations. There is a statutory difference between a commission of inquiry set up by the Government and the Waitangi Tribunal. But in ruling that way I am not belittling the very reasonable point the member raised because it was a point certainly worth examining and I can assure the member that I had a good look at that because of that very issue.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Assets Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4075. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to invite you to look carefully at the application and in particular at the case that was drawn to your attention as part of that and that is  
Hansard 
 Volume 638 at page 8541 “Urgent Debates: Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report”. That particular case was one that is absolutely parallel to this. It was the receipt of a report to the Government from a commission and of course the Waitangi Tribunal has the same status for these purposes as a commission. It was something that required a response but had not yet had a response from the Government. The Speaker on that occasion allowed an urgent debate and in fact on a number of occasions in the past Speakers have allowed urgent debates in those circumstances. 
I do not want to push it really hard now but I would like to invite you to review not your precedents but previous precedents in this area as to whether or not a matter that has occurred outside—either in a court or in a commission of inquiry or in a tribunal—that requires Government attention has to have a Government decision before we have an urgent debate here. In the past it has been my understanding that having the House express its views before the Government made a decision on an urgent and important matter was seen to be valuable.
O'Rourke Denis: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I move an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am just trying to catch up with what the member is seeking to do. If the member is seeking to move an instruction to the bill that cannot be done in Committee. That has to be done while the bill is in the House normally at the second reading stage. A motion at this point is out of order.
Mitchell Mark: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.