edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tabling of Documents — Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
Tabling of Documents — Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
[Volume:661;Page:9833] 
Tabling of Documents 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list of all of the mining licences granted under the previous Labour-led Government for national parks and other schedule 4 areas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Do I take it that the member was actually seeking leave to table a blank piece of paper? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes that is the number. It has been misrepresented by National. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member how his behaviour today is consistent with the Standing Orders of this House and with good order in this House. He led the House to believe that he had a document. A blank piece of paper is not a document. I take a very dim view of grandstanding like that by use of points of order and it will not be tolerated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a real document: an access agreement dated 22 May 2006 between the then Minister of Conservation Chris Carter and a mine in the Paparoa National Park that was approved by the Government of that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to seek further advice? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that document advise that there are two or three access ways through which Gerry Brownlee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now resume his seat. That is totally irrelevant to the issue before the House which is that leave has been sought to table a document. This nonsense will stop or someone will take an early shower. Leave has been sought for the tabling of a document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9883] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I congratulate Katrina Shanks on her chairmanship of the Social Services Committee. I also congratulate the other members of the committee who interacted well with each other. In particular I would like to congratulate Moana Mackey on the research she has done and the contribution she has made to this debate. 
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill adequately addresses a number of issues that have been raised over the last few years about deficiencies in the Act and tackles some new problems too. An example is the contamination of premises though the manufacturer of methamphetamine. The bill requires landlords to declare that contamination has been detected in a house and to have it cleaned prior to a tenant taking up residency. I recently had a situation in my electorate of a family becoming quite ill as a result of living in a house that had not been cleaned because the contamination had not been discovered. 
The bill provides the ability to take matters before the Tenancy Tribunal to argue strongly for it to extend provisions and entitlements to tenants that had not previously been available to them and to hold landlords to account on behalf of tenants who are vulnerable. That is a good measure. 
I commend the bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Tabling of Documents — Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
Mallard Trevor: Tabling of Documents — Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
[Volume:661;Page:9833] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that document advise that there are two or three access ways through which Gerry Brownlee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now resume his seat. That is totally irrelevant to the issue before the House which is that leave has been sought to table a document. This nonsense will stop or someone will take an early shower. Leave has been sought for the tabling of a document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
McClay Todd: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9863] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on the Unit Titles Bill at this stage of its movement through the House. I start by recognising the very hard work that was put in by officials of the Social Services Committee and also the officials who were seconded to the committee and gave us great advice. I think it is also important to recognise that both sides of the House worked very well on this legislation during the select committee’s deliberations. 
I also recognise that it was the previous Labour Government that first brought forward this idea and introduced it to the House. The very good news for members of the New Zealand public is they will not have to wait 11 years until it actually enters into law. We have an Acting Minister of Housing the Hon Maurice Williamson who has had the portfolio for less than a month I think and what progress we have seen! The bill went straight into the House and it will become law very very soon. 
The Unit Titles Bill is of course a technical piece of legislation and it is important that we get it right. I recognise members opposite for so graciously deciding to read the Supplementary Order Paper today. It sounds as though they have no difficulties or issues with it so it is good that they are supporting this legislation. 
I want to speak about only one aspect of change in Part 1 and that concerns time-share resorts. Richard Martin from the Lake Edge Resort in Taupo made contact with me very early in the process and of course the very hard-working and good MP for Taupo Louise Upston was aware that there was a piece of legislation that could have an effect upon time-sharing. Mr Martin made a number of concerns known to me and other members of the committee and he put in a submission. 
Largely the concerns were that if the Unit Titles Bill was to go through in its current form and time-share resorts were included then it would be near on impossible for time-share resorts to make any decisions at all. 
Let us think of a resort in Taupo where there are 10 units 52 weeks per unit and 520 possible owners. A quorum of 75 percent would mean that 375 people would need to turn up to a meeting. The select committee looked at that listened to the concerns and made changes and I think this is good for business because New Zealand and tourism could do with a bit more investment in time-share accommodation particularly in my electorate as well as in Taupo. 
I commend the bill to the Committee. I think we have worked very well at the select committee and once the bill becomes law there will be much greater certainty around unit title developments in New Zealand. Thank you.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:661;Page:9833] 
Thursday 25 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to advance the Regulatory Improvement Bill the Education Amendment Bill and other first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday 31 March is set down to be a members’ day. On Thursday 1 April the House will rise at 5 p.m. for the Easter break. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for the notice of next week’s business before the Easter adjournment. I signal to him what I spoke to him about earlier today: I have now had a chance to speak to other Opposition parties about the desire of the Business Committee to progress the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. The Opposition is very keen to cooperate with the Government to get that bill through. I notice that he referred to Wednesday’s being a members’ day. If he was prepared to seek leave for us to take the Committee stage of that bill on the Wednesday ahead of members’ orders for that particular day it would facilitate a third reading before we rise on Thursday as a tribute to Lady Raiha Mahuta which many members are keen to have. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That offer of cooperation is very well received by the Government. I think discussions about exactly how the week pans out are perhaps best left until Monday next week.
Mallard Trevor: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9749] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is about 15 seconds before 10 o’clock. I wonder whether this might be an appropriate opportunity for the House to rise and come back tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Debate interrupted.
Power Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9713] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9712] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is interesting: there must be an outbreak of love this afternoon. I note that this is the Government’s third bill that has come before the House this afternoon and both sides of the House are in full agreement in supporting all the bills before us. I also note that the Opposition took the time to move a motion of congratulations to one of our esteemed MPs so this is perhaps a great day of love that has broken out. 
I want to focus on a couple of things that other speakers have commented on and I agree with them. The bill is highly technical but it focuses on a further step if you will in the growing relationship with our near neighbours in Australia. But there is one aspect that I do not think has been covered and which I think is very important to note for the record. We have obviously reflected that this bill will assist in progressing civil proceedings much more efficiently and in particular will improve the effectiveness of any remedies awarded. It is particularly important to note that the biggest beneficiaries will be medium to small businesses. We know that the big corporates have the resources to take things to extreme and one might say play hard ball when things are not going their way. The small to medium sized enterprises have great difficulty in firstly taking action and secondly—depending on the success or otherwise—being able to pursue the remedies that may have been awarded to them. They have had difficulty and had to go to great expense to pursue those awards. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill simply because the greatest beneficiaries will be small to medium sized businesses. 
The other aspect I want to comment on as have other speakers from the Opposition is the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill. I note that it canvasses some of the economic indicators contained in the bill and although I note that I was somewhat disappointed with the contribution of David Parker to this debate it is worth recording that the very steps this Government is taking—and this bill is one of them—are all aimed at improving the economic position of New Zealand relative to Australia. We are doing that so that New Zealand can once again reverse what occurred under the previous administration whereby our relative position was going backwards. With those few remarks I join with others in recommending the bill for its first reading. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.
Graham Kennedy: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9709] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party regards this Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill as introducing an improved legal framework for addressing trans-Tasman civil disputes and as such it should make it easier for such disputes to be resolved more quickly and more cheaply. The bill also provides for the greater use of video and audio conferencing which has environmental benefits as well as efficiency benefits. 
A potential issue with the bill is that it helps set up a regulatory framework that could facilitate further economic integration between Australia and New Zealand in terms of CER and the single economic market. We do not think that this in itself is a strong enough reason to vote against the bill as the general impact will be positive. 
One technical issue with the bill is that it might allow a litigant to lodge proceedings in one jurisdiction without proving that it is the most appropriate place to do so. That is to say he or she could lodge a proceeding in New Zealand without proving that it is more appropriate to do so here than in Australia. The defendant in that situation could apply for a stay of proceedings to stop inappropriate jurisdiction being used but this moves the onus of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant which would be an unusual development. 
We think this issue should be explored at the Justice and Electoral Committee but with due regard to those passing concerns we are positively disposed towards the bill and we support its referral to the select committee.
Harawira Hone: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9710] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. The 2006 report  
Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 reckoned that there were about 120000 Maori living in different parts of Australia. It listed a number of reasons why Maori have chosen to move to what has been called the lucky country: lifestyle climate economic opportunity higher wages and a lower cost of living. Mind you there is also a series of more negative factors which forced Maori to leave Aotearoa: prejudice from Pakeha mainstream negativity about Maori issues negative attitudes towards success within their own whanau the ugly side of domestic violence and the impact of drugs gangs and crime. Members of the Maori Party have been over there a few times and we have seen the full extent of the challenges people face in trying to maintain Maori cultural practice and nurture their sense of Maori identity; and despite the best efforts of whanau here to entice their loved ones home again it is fair to conclude that there will continue to be a significant number of Maori who call Australia home. 
In particular whanau employed in construction mining security community services and various trades happily call states such as Queensland and Western Australia in particular a blue-collar paradise. This bill recognises the huge increase in the movement of people assets and services between both countries with nearly 450000 Kiwis living over there and apparently some 60000 Aussies living here. Exports from Australia to New Zealand total about $8 billion and exports the other way total about $7 billion. Apparently it is much the same for services with about $3 billion going either way. 
The area of real difference is the level of investment with total Australian investment here being about $70 billion and total New Zealand investment over there being about $25 billion. That is what this bill is all about—the challenges posed by trans-Tasman trade relationships—because the growing levels of investment and the export and import of goods and services bring with them a greater number of disputes involving those working across borders. The bill puts in place dispute resolution processes that are cheaper more efficient and less complicated and can deliver tangible results to individuals and businesses in both countries. Hopefully this bill will help streamline the process for registering and enforcing court judgments facilitate the greater use of technology to enable parties to appear in proceedings in either country and ensure that fines imposed in either country for regulatory crimes can be enforced in both countries. For those reasons and others the Maori Party will be supporting the bill at this stage. Kia ora tatou.
Sepuloni Carmel: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9709] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a brief speech to reiterate Labour’s support for the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It arises from work done by the fifth Labour Government. In 2003 Helen Clark along with John Howard set up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. The working-group identified ways to streamline the process for resolving civil proceedings involving a trans-Tasman element. The group’s recommendations were incorporated into the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement which was signed in 2008. 
New Zealand and Australia have two of the most closely aligned or integrated economies in the world. Every day there is huge movement of people assets and services between the two countries. Of course this means that disputes with a cross-border element will inevitably arise. This bill is therefore very important as it facilitates the efficient and effective resolution of such disputes. These reforms are important for all businesses and individuals who could be involved in trans-Tasman disputes. For them this bill will make the justice system more efficient and more affordable to use. It will simplify trans-Tasman court proceedings and make dispute resolution much easier. 
These reforms are also important for the future of closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. This bill provides support for the trans-Tasman trade relationship and removes barriers to that relationship. It more closely integrates the civil justice systems of the two countries and the passing of this bill will also mean that regulatory enforcement between New Zealand and Australia is greatly improved. This bill is enormously significant for closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. It will bring our two separate legal systems into alignment in a way that is unprecedented anywhere in the world. It is symbolic of our close and unique relationship that New Zealand and Australia can work like this to allow for ever closer cooperation between individuals and business across the Tasman. 
Acknowledgment should be made to Simon Power for introducing this bill and to the fifth Labour Government for setting up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement in 2003 and for signing the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement in 2008. This bill concludes the excellent work done by the previous Government on reforming the process for resolution of disputes with a trans-Tasman element. Thank you.
Quinn Paul: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9700] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for accepting my call. I will canvass the clauses set out in Part 2 but before I do that I place on record my congratulations to the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee and to all the members of the select committee. Members may not have noticed this but most if not all of the bills that come back to the House from the Maori Affairs Committee do so with the unanimous support of that committee. It is no wonder that members on both sides of the Chamber join as one in commending the excellent work that the Maori Affairs Committee does. 
Having placed those comments on record I will cover a couple of provisions of Part 2. This part is the operative— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Which page? 
PAUL QUINN 
: It is Part 2—page— 
Simon Bridges 
: How many clauses? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —well there are a number of clauses in here. Firstly I will focus on clause 7 which sets out the Crown’s obligations in respect of this particular bill. Members will see a number of insertions are to be made into the principal Act and— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Amendments. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —these amendments; I thank my colleague—are the operative parts that enable— 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re pretty passionate about this aren’t you? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha; excuse me—the proposals to be carried out. Those proposals are to replace or bring into effect the fact that if you will the undertakings made in what has already been referred to quite correctly as the pre-commencement stage may be able to be fulfilled with a lump-sum payment. These provisions of this bill will enable that. 
I now move to clause 9 which is on the next page I say to Shane Jones. Members will see there some specitivity around or it makes some reference— 
Simon Bridges 
: Specitivity? What’s specitivity? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —to section 31 as amended by the substitution of new subsection (4). 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Oh this is really excruciating. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Please! 
Hone Harawira 
: Can you take your seat please Mr Quinn? 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am being distracted. 
Hone Harawira 
: You’re coming apart! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yeah. Just again focusing— 
Hone Harawira 
: Have some more oysters. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha—on that as I said I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to that section. I think that the rest of Part 2 is all pretty straightforward. 
My concluding remark is that I hope that brings a better understanding of the bill. Thank you.
Chadwick Steve: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9711] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call to add to the words of the previous speaker and speakers before me on this side. As has been said this bill really arises from the work done by the previous Labour Government. It is quite significant that this work started with John Howard and Helen Clark way back in 2003 and it is really interesting that we are here in 2010—7 years later. That shows how long it takes to do things properly when one is trying to get a trans-Tasman agreement and then trying to get supporting legislation in both countries to any trans-Tasman agreement. These reforms will make legal proceedings between the two countries much easier. Another benefit is that they will be much more affordable. So the bill works towards the closer economic relations plank that the two countries have. 
I commend some of the people who have worked on the bill particularly David Goddard QC. He was a member of the trans-Tasman working-group which reported back to the Labour-led Government in 2005. He pointed out that these proposals are the most far reaching between two sovereign States with separate legal systems. Today Minister Simon Power mentioned that the enabling legislation has been tabled already in Australia and this side will not get in the way of New Zealand’s legislation being progressed through all stages. 
I feel it is important to acknowledge the work of the previous Minister Lianne Dalziel. She signed the agreement between New Zealand and Australia in Christchurch in 2008 so one can see how long these steps take. Something like this cannot be supercharged; it had to go through the Australian system and then our legislation has to take its pathway. 
This bill is great work and now Labour is in Opposition and we have a National-led Prime Minister working with an Australian Labor-led Prime Minister. It shows how close both countries are with our intent to do what we can where we can as two countries to make relationships work more smoothly and to have our legislation more aligned. We support this legislation.
Henare Tau: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9694] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi ki oku nei korero ki te whanau pani. Raiha mihi kau atu au ki a koe mo to kaha mo to manaaki ki ahau ki toku whanau. No reira he mihi aroha ki a koe e whaea me to whanau hoki. Ano he mihi aroha ki a Nanaia me tana whanau. No reira he wa potopoto tenei tangi ki a koe. 
[ 
I wish to firstly acknowledge the bereaved family. Lady Raiha I thank you for your efforts in taking care of myself and also my family. Therefore I express my condolences to you and your family and to Nanaia and her family too. This then is just but a brief moment to lament you 
.] 
Very briefly the purpose of the bill is to add some tools to the tool box of the Crown for its complying with its obligation under section 22(1) of the main Act in respect of the pre-commencement space. I echo the words of my colleague Parekura Horomia who said that the level of cooperation and consultation between iwi and the Crown iwi and iwi and everybody involved was a sight to behold. 
The bill is about making good on a promise of using the settlement to better everybody rather than just one group. This pre-commencement settlement is in everybody’s best interests. I can say without contradiction that the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who heard submissions were astounded at how easy the process before the select committee was namely because we all agreed on it but also because we wanted to see— 
Kelvin Davis 
: We always agree. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: We always agree yes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it goes without saying that we always agree. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding leadership. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you very much. It was also about trying to get a swift turn-round. As you Mr Chairperson Barker know better than a lot of people sometimes the cogs in this place can turn very very slowly. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time on these provisions because I do not think we need to do so. 
I suppose the winners in the first instance are the Hauraki people and Te Wai Pounamu people. They now have the opportunity to make good on their wishes to have an economic base for their iwi members. It also gives the Government the opportunity to look maybe later on at dealing with Treaty settlements and at how fast we can move if there is a will to do that. 
I mentioned the cooperation of iwi and the Crown. I also want to say something about the cooperation of iwi. Sometimes cooperation between iwi is very difficult because of the boundaries because of old stories and because old wars and fights are being fought on another battleground. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Only up north! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That does not happen in the north. Thankfully on this occasion the cooperation between iwi and the consultation has been second to none. I just want to say that the purpose of the bill is about making a quick start on economic development for the iwi involved.
Smith Nick: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9693] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Ardern Jacinda: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9688] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I said before the debate on this bill was interrupted that I would of course return to the House to use my remaining 2 minutes to speak to this bill. The bill essentially allows a widening of the use of video conferencing facilities in our court service—a critical issue of debate. I have to say I would rather have spent my 2 minutes and 30 seconds debating the important matter of mining but that is how these things go. 
I conclude my consideration of this bill by saying that it seems to me that building efficiencies into the court system—and I can only assume that this is part of the Government’s agenda with this bill—is part of the purpose of the use of this new technology. The one warning I offered in the initial part of my contribution was that in the United Kingdom a similar form of technology was used for a pilot programme called Virtual Courts. The idea from the perspective of UK lawmakers was to replace some of the early court proceedings with video conferencing which meant that prisoners would not have to be transported. The idea was that money would be saved as a consequence. That has not been the outcome of that system for those who introduced it and they are still working on finding cost savings through that pilot programme. So I issue a word of warning to the Government: if cost saving is the primary purpose of this initiative it may wish to cost more effectively—because it has not done so in the regulatory impact statement—the savings and the benefits of the system because it comes at another cost. 
We have to be very careful to ensure that we balance out the striving for efficiency gains in our court system which is under a lot of pressure with the idea that we do not undermine the very important principle of justice and giving all people their day in court so to speak. That has been very roughly cast out in this bill but it has been done through a set of criteria. It strikes me that there is still the ability even where evidence has been heard in a court case for a potential defendant not to be present. If that is the case I think we should be very aware of the fact that there is a balance to be struck and we will be looking for that balance in the select committee process. Thank you.
Quinn Paul: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9690] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I note the comments made by the previous speaker my friend and colleague Hone Harawira. I respect his position but I am pleased that his party is supporting the bill at this stage so that it can be referred to a select committee. As I understand it members of the Opposition are also supporting the bill at its first reading. 
It is a fact that the justice system in this country for a number of reasons takes far too long to work through its stages. Anything that will improve the delivery of justice by our justice system is in my view to be applauded. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied and there are many examples of people waiting too long for progress to be made in hearings. 
All this bill does in fact is to drag our court system into the 21st century by allowing the use of audiovisual technology principally to progress procedural issues in the criminal courts. This technology is used in some aspects of proceedings particularly in terms of witness testimony. 
One aspect of improving our justice system is looking for ways to drive much more efficiency. In fact we are already doing that. One of the areas for instance in which we are doing that is in the use of the courts themselves. We are extending the hours of sitting. The previous administration if I am correct introduced the extension of night sittings of courts. That is to be applauded because we have assets in excess of $700 million sitting on the Ministry of Justice’s books and not being used. 
So it makes sense that we use more efficiently the assets and resources that we have available to deliver justice in a proper and effective way so that people can get on with their lives. With those few comments I am happy to support the first reading of this bill.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Joint Ministerial Approval for Access 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Joint Ministerial Approval for Access 
[Volume:661;Page:9688] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the introduction of joint ministerial approval for access to Crown land. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence an event upon which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. 
Ministers released a discussion paper yesterday containing a number of proposals and seeking input from the community before making decisions about the policy initiatives set out in the paper including the introduction of joint ministerial approval. No decision has yet been made. In these circumstances there can be no particular case of recent occurrence. This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House; it simply does not meet the requirement of the urgent debate procedure at this time. The application is therefore declined.
Carter John: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
Carter John: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
[Volume:661;Page:9687] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
Vote: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
[Volume:661;Page:9688] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Motion to congratulate Steven Joyce agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
[Volume:661;Page:9685] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9681] 
12. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he stand by his statement that he ordered the inquiries into the leaking of information about the stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and changes to the structure of the public sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. These inquiries were instigated by the State Services Commissioner following a direction from me pursuant to section 8 of the State Sector Act. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer is the Minister suggesting that the Prime Minister misled the public when he said on Thursday that the State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie and not the Government had instigated the investigations into this area? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the Minister discuss the issue of an inquiry into those leaks with the Prime Minister at a Cabinet or Cabinet committee meeting last week? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There have been a number of discussions within Cabinet on those matters. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think the member addressed the question that I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just reflecting on the question asked. The question asked whether the Minister discussed the matter with the Prime Minister. The Minister did not answer that; the Minister answered a different question. So I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member may one day find out discussions in Cabinet are confidential. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why has the Minister not widened the scope of the inquiries to investigate the leaking of Budget-sensitive information to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the story used information based on the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s estimates. No decisions have been taken on the final shape of any tax cut packages to be announced in Budget 2010. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office that states that the Minister of State Services Tony Ryall confirms that he asked the State Services Commission to inquire into the leaks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9681] 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has the Environmental Protection Authority received any resource consent applications under the new national consenting process provided for in the 2009 amendments to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. The first application has been received from Contact Energy for its Touhara 2 240-megawatt geothermal power plant. The proposal is nationally significant and would provide power for 180000 homes or the equivalent of a city the size of Wellington. The application has been referred to a board of inquiry to be chaired by Environment Court judge Gordon Whiting and to include four other commissioners with relevant skills in geology geothermal power the environment and tikanga Maori. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What are the key differences in the process for considering that project as compared with the process prior to the Government’s amendments? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first difference is that the application was made directly to the new Environmental Protection Authority rather than it going to a regional or territorial authority and being called in. Secondly the application must be dealt with in a timely way so that decisions are made within 9 months of the public notification. The third key change is that with the board of inquiry process the appeal rights are quite limited. The Government’s objective is to do these major projects once and to do them properly rather than seeing the years of litigation that have been so typical of major projects of this sort. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps is the Government taking to encourage the development of renewable energy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an objective of this Government to reverse the trend of the last decade in seeing a reduction in the proportion of renewable electricity. The changes we made to the Resource Management Act last year are part of that strategy and this year we will also be advancing a national policy statement on renewable electricity to facilitate sensible viable developments.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9677] 
7. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the procurement of electric trains for Auckland’s commuter rail network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm that KiwiRail has begun the tender process to procure approximately 114 electric trains for Auckland. This is a $500 million investment signed off by Cabinet in November to upgrade Auckland’s commuter rail system. It will provide a modern world-class rail system that commuters will want to use. KiwiRail has issued an industry-engagement document and a preferred supplier will be identified by the end of the year. The first electric trains will be delivered in 2013. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does this fit into the overall upgrade of Auckland’s commuter rail network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Very well. The purchase of a new fleet of electric rolling stock is the final piece in the overall $1.6 billion project to greatly improve the capacity and reliability of Auckland’s rail network. The $600 million upgrade is progressing well. In addition the $500 million electrification of the rail network infrastructure is also progressing well. The necessary new signalling is already being installed on parts of the network and the first masts should begin appearing later this year. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that all or a substantial number of these units are built or assembled here in New Zealand either at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin or at Woburn in the Hutt Valley? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This will be a competitive tender process and of course KiwiRail will have the opportunity to bid for that process. The most important thing however is getting the right value for money for taxpayers in developing the trains and ensuring that we can obtain the trains within the $500 million budget that has been set.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9674] 
4. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What were the findings of the Government stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The stocktake confirmed that New Zealand is a mineral-rich country. Our mineral resources even excluding coal and other hydrocarbon-based minerals are estimated to be in the zone of some $194 billion. The stocktake leads to the conclusion that the environmentally responsible development of even a small amount of these resources could have a positive impact on the New Zealand economy. The stocktake also found that the mineral potential of schedule 4 lands could be developed with only a very small proportion of that land being directly impacted. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is the Government proposing as a result of the stocktake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is proposing removing 7058 hectares of land from schedule 4 including some areas of the Coromandel Peninsula and a sector of the Paparoa National Park. The land that is being removed represents just 0.2 percent of the total of schedule 4 land. However the mineral wealth of that land is assessed as being very high. We are also proposing to add 12000 hectares to schedule 4 for a net gain to the schedule of some 5342 hectares. These proposals strike a rational and sensible balance between taking advantage of our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will the environment be protected as a result of these proposals? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Removing land from schedule 4 does not mean that mining automatically takes place. All it means is that mining applications are considered on a case by case basis as they are for all other areas of the country. For schedule 4 land the environmental test that would be applied would obviously be much tougher. All mines are subject of course to the Resource Management Act and to a consenting process. It is worth noting that the Government is also establishing a conservation fund which would be drawn from royalties from mining on those lands. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister expect to have the “rational discussion” he said on Radio New Zealand National today that he wants to have about mining in conservation areas when in that same interview he first dismissed fears about mining in national parks yet later in the same interview described steps being taken to advance mining in Paparoa National Park and Rakiura National Park? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am very pleased that the member is listening to my messages around this particular issue which I am happy to give. It is extremely simple: the question is in two parts. We have said we will look at getting more information about the specific location of those minerals. The proposal before New Zealanders today has 3500 hectares out of a nearly 4 million hectare estate going out of the Paparoa National Park. The rest of it is not national park.
Dunne Peter: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
Dunne Peter: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
[Volume:661;Page:9669] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others in this House who have paid tribute to the late Lady Raiha Mahuta. I did not have the privilege of knowing her personally but I do know of her very strong reputation her considerable achievements and the widespread regard and affection within which she was held by her family. I know too of the deep sense of loss that they will be feeling at this sad time. My thoughts are with our parliamentary colleague Nanaia in particular. Our wish is that the family is able to come together to deal with this massive gap in their lives to pay tribute as appropriate and to respect a great New Zealand woman. 
It is always difficult at times like this to come to grips with the reality of what has happened but I hope that the regard in which Lady Mahuta was held by many around this country and by this House as is evident in this Chamber this afternoon is of some consolation to the family in the difficult days ahead. My thoughts are certainly with them. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
Hide Rodney: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
[Volume:661;Page:9668] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party on this sad day to mark the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta and to extend our condolences particularly to Nanaia Mahuta our parliamentary colleague and to the wider Mahuta family. My most recent meeting with Lady Raiha was on the vexed issue of the boundaries of the new Auckland Council and Lady Raiha Mahuta along with Sir William Birch put the case most forcefully for shifting the boundaries north. On that day we did not agree nor did the Government but I have to say that throughout the discussion Lady Raiha conducted the argument with the utmost respect and dignity that one has come to expect with this wonderful lady. Thank you.
Key John: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
Key John: Obituaries — Raiha Lady Mahuta 
[Volume:661;Page:9667] 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the recent passing of Raiha Lady Mahuta. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this Parliament mark the passing of Raiha Lady Mahuta.  
This morning I was informed of the passing of Lady Raiha who was a quiet but effective leader and negotiator for Waikato-Tainui. On behalf of this House I offer my sincere sympathy to the whanau friends and colleagues of Lady Raiha. 
Lady Raiha was best known to many of us for her Waikato-Tainui links but she also acknowledged her northern tribal connections. She studied physiotherapy at Otago University in the 1960s where she met her future husband Robert Mahuta. Following the death of her husband Sir Robert in 2001 Lady Raiha took on a leading role in Waikato-Tainui affairs focusing particularly on the Waikato River claim. She was passionate about her cause and she was determined to complete the task left to her by her late husband. In doing so she was respectful of others’ views but forthright with her own. She was open and honest during the process. 
Just last Friday I spent some time with Lady Raiha in Hamilton. Although I did not know at the time that she was in her final days I was struck by how Lady Raiha maintained her dignity and her commitment to the Waikato-Tainui cause despite her illness. Lady Raiha was 67 years old. She will be greatly missed by the people of Tainui and particularly by her children: Tukaroto our parliamentary colleague Nanaia and Tipa. Lady Raiha also had six grandchildren. Our thoughts are with Lady Raiha’s whanau at this time.