edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Boscawen John: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 My understanding is that this is the second reading debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I was not intending to take a call on this bill but I have been listening to Mr Stuart Nash this morning and I have heard very little about the bill and the things that are in it. In fact Mr Nash used his opportunity to promote Lianne Dalziel. I was not counting but I understand that Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was and I think her name was mentioned nine times. 
I need to respond to some of the comments that Mr Nash made about Lianne Dalziel. I agree that Lianne Dalziel is a good listener and she is a very good chair of the Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure of attending a function in Hawke’s Bay with her just on 2 weeks ago when she launched her member’s bill. In fact Mr Nash knows that well because he was there on the day initially as well. 
We also heard from Mr Nash that the Labour Party is the true party of business and he talked about a consultation process. He said that Lianne Dalziel had travelled around the country from North Cape to the Bluff consulting and listening. But then sadly Mr Nash could not pass up the opportunity to try to screw the knife in. He said that he could not see Rodney Hide and Simon Power travelling around and consulting the country. As an ACT member I cannot allow those comments to go unchallenged. 
Hone Harawira 
: Hear hear!
Roy Eric: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There is a very clear chronology in terms of how these matters are actually dealt with. The question of an omnibus bill meeting the requirements of the Standing Orders is addressed at the introduction of the bill. The House has now accepted that the provisions in this omnibus bill meet those requirements. In that respect the member’s point of order is not upheld.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make my first speech on the Regulatory Improvement Bill at its second reading. I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson. He has shown a deft hand in regulatory reform as well as in Treaty negotiations and in the other portfolios that he holds. I also commend the Hon Rodney Hide who first introduced this bill. 
This bill is about cutting red tape. It is about reducing the bureaucracy involved in transacting business. It is a bill to be commended because the single most important issue facing this country is an economic issue: an issue of productivity and of economic growth in order to provide for the opportunities and jobs that so many New Zealanders deserve. This bill will not solve all the problems relating to regulation; I think that we all acknowledge that. But it carries on the valuable work that the previous speaker the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel took in pushing for regulatory reform. It shows that this Government is committed to helping businesses to get through these tough times. 
When I go to visit the businesses in Maungakiekie in Auckland two things stand out in terms of their issues with the Government. Firstly those businesses that export their products have issues with the exchange rate. But the second major issue that faces small to medium sized businesses in this country relates to the regulations and compliance costs that they must face. 
Our productivity growth was shown by the GDP figures released last week. We have had our third quarter of growth in this country in terms of our output which is a positive thing. One of the stunning statistics shown in recent articles in the media is that our level of exports decreased for four consecutive years under the previous Government. We need to address that. I am glad that we had reference to dairy farming in the bill that we have just debated because that industry is one of the most important sectors to drive growth for this country. 
As the Minister has already said the 22 amendments in this legislation have the broad objective of improving the regulatory framework. I will not go through each of those individual amendments but in my third reading speech I will refer to some critical recommendations from our Commerce Committee. Overall this is a bill that needs to be passed. It will provide for less regulation or for better regulation—call it what we will—and it is a bill that the Government supports. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to it.
Shearer David: Unit Titles Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Unit Titles Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I take a quick call on the Unit Titles Bill. As an Auckland MP this bill has real relevance to me. There are likely to be 500000 people living in the type of accommodation that this bill addresses. It will be extremely relevant in the years to come. I too commend those who have been working on it such as my colleague Moana Mackey the longstanding Minister of Housing and those others who have worked so assiduously in the Social Services Committee. 
As many others have spoken on this bill and have pointed out its good points I will touch on just a couple. One as we know is that the body corporate is capable of owning common property. That will enable the body corporate to take a collective view on repairs to things like the roof or the lift of the building which may otherwise have fallen to one unit holder. 
Another good feature of this bill is that the decisions do not need to be unanimous as was the case. Only 75 percent of people have to agree which means that some of those who held out and who held up what otherwise would have been a good decision no longer have that ability. However they do have the opportunity for redress in the Tenancy Tribunal which is the place that has been set aside for any grievances should anything like that happen. 
I acknowledge that I am possibly the last speaker standing between us and the Easter weekend. Therefore I will not speak any longer on this bill. I could be the most popular member of this House at this time! I would like to wish everybody a happy Easter. Thank you.
Hague Kevin: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by sharing the concerns about urgency that Charles Chauvel raised. In particular I note that Katrina Shanks was the only person from the Government side who attempted to justify urgency and her explanation for it was entirely woeful. 
The Green Party will vote against the changes to the Conservation Act the Reserves Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but will vote for all the other changes. We support the principle behind the Regulatory Improvement Bill. When this kind of legislation comes before the House in the future let us ensure that the measures proposed are genuinely uncontroversial. In relation to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act they do not meet the test of addressing duplication gaps errors and consistency between legislation. Therefore they ought not to have been included in this legislation. In particular these changes will reduce rather than enhance contestability will introduce a substantial barrier to entry into a market and will lead to locking in bad decisions where quality is hard to measure in concessions. The Government’s intent to see the natural world as a set of resources to exploit rather than treasure and to starve the Department of Conservation of cash will lead to long-term concession decisions made for revenue and not for conservation values. That is regrettable. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Hipkins Chris: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 No problem. This is probably a discussion that occurred just before the member arrived in the Chamber. I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls without there being any alteration to the overall time limit for the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Macindoe Tim: Unit Titles Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Unit Titles Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a grubby churlish and confused contribution that was from the former Minister of Housing the Hon Maryan Street. It is worth pointing out to the House and to anybody listening that that former Minister has not been a part of the Social Services Committee since the change of Government. She has not been working with our committee as we have done considerable work in a very constructive manner. 
As my colleague Hekia Parata did I thank a previous Labour speaker Moana Mackey. I too acknowledge that she has a genuine and detailed knowledge of these issues and has made a very constructive contribution. 
It is very disappointing that in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill we had to listen to an attack on members of this House and comments— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Well someone has to call it the way they see it Tim. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: —she continues to interrupt now—that wander far away from the point of this bill. Sadly I have to move on in a minute or so to a select committee and I cannot do justice to those comments. 
The Social Services Committee heard considerable contributions from a large number of submitters. They were heard very very comprehensively and their points have been taken on board. There have been two Ministers of Housing during the passage of this legislation through the House and both have given it considerable attention. I commend them for the work they have done. There is no doubt that this is very significant legislation. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government but I certainly dispute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands in terms of bringing it back to the House. This legislation required the work it has received. 
New Zealanders have heard a lot of talk about simplifying regulations in recent times. This Government has brought this legislation to a conclusion. I am very proud to commend it to the House and I am delighted that it will soon become the law of New Zealand.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill read a third time.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10194. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the various legislation from the Regulatory Improvement Bill as the Minister has outlined. I will not get into the regular accolades that have been thrown around in the House except to say that I have enjoyed working with the chair of the Commerce Committee and I acknowledge the work she did during the period when she was the Minister of Commerce. 
I quickly acknowledge the officials. The previous speaker mentioned the number of officials who were at our select committee. The advice those officials provided was by and large sound advice and they worked together across departments which is something we would like to see more of not just in the formulation of laws but also in the formulation of policies and regulations. 
Much has been said already and I echo the comments of others. It is good that we can get cross-party support. I acknowledge and respect the divergent views of the Green Party whose members argued against part of the bill but I am certain they support the general thrust of what has been debated today. This bill is only a small step as the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already mentioned. Certainly I would like to see more of this type of legislation in this House; more bills that look at regulation. Regulation is a good thing as has been stated but we need to look at the costs of compliance and red tape that businesses have to endure in order to get on with their lot. I support this bill. It has been a joy to work with our fellow committee members. Thank you.
Power Simon: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following the agreement of the Business Committee I seek leave following the second reading of the Maori Purposes Bill for the bill to be divided into four bills as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 and for the four bills so divided to be set down for third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this evening. As a result I seek leave of the House for the House to rise to return at 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Calder Cam: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. It is great to note the fact that we have the support of a wide range of parties—the Greens the Maori Party ACT and United Future—for this legislation. It is remarkable that we should be criticised by the Labour Opposition for bringing this legislation to the House. In the last few years of the Labour Government some 18 wells were drilled in Taranaki. Was any environmental protection put in by the Labour Government? Zero. How much? Zero nothing nada. It is risible to believe that we should do nothing just because the continental shelf has not been completely defined at this stage. 
We are bringing this bill to the House to protect the marine environment. We believe in economic development but also protection of the environment goes hand in hand with that development. At this point in time I would like to give credit to those at work in the North and South Taranaki bights where oil exploration and development has been going on for 50 years. In fact as far as I am aware there has not been any leakage to date from any well hole there which is a superb reflection on their professionalism and involvement in best practice. The catastrophe we have all noted with alarm in the Gulf of Mexico has even heightened their resolve to improve their activities. It has certainly informed our framing of this legislation. When I talked to an industry leader in Taranaki some months ago he pointed out that the catastrophic spillage was the result of a highly unusual cascade of events which is a little bit analogous to the holes in a Swiss cheese all aligning at the same time. That was the likelihood of those events occurring. 
The exclusive economic zone is a pretty recent construct. Historically the territorial sovereign limits extended out 3 miles—the distance of a long cannon shot. In the 1970s a tuna fleet from the United States encountered Ecuadorian naval gun boats. The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and as a result the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was enacted defining the exclusive economic zone at 200 miles. This bill reflects New Zealand’s management and protection of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone which is an obligation under that United Nations convention. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committeeconsider the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.
te Heuheu Georgina: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
te Heuheu Georgina: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs: I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21214. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Alcohol Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still stand by his statement “I gave a commitment to the families at Pike River that I’d do everything I could to get their men out and I stand by that”; if so will he commit to funding the recovery of bodies when a plan to do so is established? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. As I have said on a number of occasions when we are presented with a credible plan with a good chance of success we will look at funding issues. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Has he asked the receiver to provide funding for the recovery of the bodies of the miners lost in the Pike River tragedy? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because I am not a party to the receivership. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the announcement yesterday that the receiver is providing payment to Pike River contractors what obligation will he be expecting of the receiver to provide funding for the recovery of the 29 men? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That matter will have to be worked through but if I am to understand the receiver’s public comments as I have seen them I think the receiver has indicated that it will look very closely at that. I think it is conscious of all the issues involved. The position has always been certainly from the Government’s point of view that show us a credible plan that does not endanger any more lives and has a good chance of success and we will have a look at it financially beyond there. That position remains. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in the management of the disaster and does he consider it appropriate that the police managed the process given their limited knowledge of underground mines? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member would fully appreciate that there is a royal commission going on at the moment. It would be most unhelpful for me to wade in and answer that question.
Vote: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What events are being held to celebrate Conservation Week this week? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 More than 120 events are being held across the entire country for Conservation Week including Living Legends—tree plantings in Northland Waikato King Country and Taranaki—a wetland restoration project in Canterbury and a conservation-themed quiz night on Stewart Island. The theme for the week is “Show New Zealand you love it”. I encourage all members of this House to get outside and participate in as many community events as they can. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other announcements or events are planned for Conservation Week? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Tomorrow I will visit the Otaki electorate with my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy where we will announce the purchase of 17 hectares of wetland to be protected as a scenic reserve. On Thursday night I have the privilege of launching the most comprehensive book on New Zealand’s native trees at Unity Books here in Wellington. Thanks to the Dick Roberts Community Trust this book will be donated to hundreds of intermediate and high schools across the country.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 To the Minister of Conservation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise; my ears have still not come right but I will not have a chance of hearing Nicky Wagner. I want to hear her question No. 9. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Normally when one of us—someone like Annette King—interrupts like that you rebuke us specifically. You did not do so to Bill English who made that loud noise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me—I do accept that my ears are very poor at the moment—but with all respect I believe that I heard noise from far wider quarters. I could not identify where it was all from but it was more than would have allowed me to hear Nicky Wagner. I just say to the honourable member that I am not sure whether his team has been totally without significant interjection today. There is nothing wrong with that I acknowledge but there has been quite a lot of interjection.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice if any has he sought or received on the contracting of Mervyn English and Paul McCormack to work in the Ministry of Health? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been advised by the Director-General of Health that the Ministry of Health retained these men in accordance with the ministry’s employment and procurement policies respectively. I have also asked the State Services Commissioner to confirm that these appointments were consistent with the ministry’s policies and procedures. 
Grant Robertson 
: What information has he received from the Ministry of Health to justify why the jobs being filled by Mervyn English and Paul McCormack were not advertised? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Those are matters that the Director-General of Health is in charge of because those matters are operational. He has assured me that everything has been done in accordance with the ministry’s policies and procedures. 
Grant Robertson 
: Was he aware of the employment of Mr English and Mr McCormack at the Ministry of Health before they signed contracts for their positions? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did he discuss the work of the Health Sector Forum with Mervyn English before he was appointed to his position? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did he seek advice from the Minister of State Services with regard to whether the contracting of Mervyn English and Paul McCormack was in line with the State Sector Act as soon as he found out about their appointments? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. I sought advice on these matters following an article that appeared in the newspaper on Saturday. I have received advice that the appointments were in accordance with the ministry’s policies and procedures.
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: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What progress has been made to better streamline the way the Government contracts with social services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We began the contract mapping project in mid-2010 to provide greater transparency and access to the Government’s funding of social services providers. This was done by overlaying around 24000 contracts and their information from Child Youth and Family Work and Income the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Education the family and community services group Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Youth Development. It includes who and what is funded and where on Google Maps and it provides greater access to transparency for our communities. 
Jonathan Young 
: Can she update the House on the Government’s high-trust contracts? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Coming into Government we saw the need to support social services to streamline the way we contracted with them in particular with our funding. Believing that it is local communities that can make the biggest difference for those families high-trust contracts recognise those community providers. It actually delivers them their contracts all up front before they have done it and all at the beginning of the year. It consolidates other contracts and makes a big difference to them how they work their speed and flexibility and how they work with families. 
Rahui Katene 
: What level of savings can the Government expect from the integration of Government contracts under the Whanau Ora model against the silo approach of years gone by? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I cannot give the member an absolute on what the savings are under the integration of contracts under Whanau Ora and in all respects I think that what it has actually done is provide more services to people and to whanau. There will be some savings because that is inevitable when one sees those contracts merged together and integrated. I think what it has done is more on the delivery side. What it will deliver to those whanau well exceeds any small savings that you might get from bringing those contracts together.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent reports has he received regarding improvements in water management in Canterbury following the Government’s decision to appoint commissioners in 2010? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government’s concerns in appointing commissioners were: the lack of a resource management plan for the huge water management issues in Canterbury an appalling record of resource consent processing and a lack of progress in addressing the deterioration of water quality in Canterbury. The latest report from the commissioners shows great progress: an operative natural resources plan is now in place for the first time since 1991 and compliance with resource consents has improved more in Canterbury than in any other region with serious non-compliance halved from 19 percent to 8 percent. Another significant achievement has been agreement on the $12 million clean-up of New Zealand’s most polluted lake Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere which I recently launched with the local member in partnership with Ngai Tahu Fonterra and local councils. 
Amy Adams 
: What progress has been made on Environment Canterbury’s appalling record of resource consent processing which saw it rated as the worst council in the country in the 2007-08 year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In that year Environment Canterbury processed only 29 percent of consents within the statutory time frames. The latest report shows that there has been a dramatic improvement. Within the last year 92 percent of resource consents have been processed on time. This improvement from 29 percent when Labour was in Government to 92 percent now is a real credit to the work of the commissioners and their staff. It is a relief for the thousands of homeowners businesses and farmers who have previously been held up by poor processes. With the rebuild of Canterbury it is particularly important that we have efficient resource consent processing so that we can rebuild Canterbury.
Upston Louise: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to take a brief call in the second reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill. This bill has been debated at length by constituents in my electorate. 
I think it is important to bring perspective back to the debate. The bill is looking to reduce the harm caused by alcohol as a result of excessive and/or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. We are not talking about the moderate consumption of alcohol that many people whom we represent enjoy. It is important that we keep that perspective. There is no expectation that alcohol is harmful to an individual when consumed in a moderate and responsible way. The Greens member Sue Kedgley talked about the fact that we could be implementing quite Draconian measures similar to the smoking legislation that has been passed but we need to remember that we are talking about two quite different issues in terms of the impact on one’s health. It is also quite ironic that the Greens propose such Draconian measures when that same party wants to legalise cannabis. 
I want to leave on the record that this bill is about reducing harm. It is about reducing harm caused as a result of either inappropriate or excessive consumption of alcohol. We are not talking about the bulk of New Zealanders the people we represent who are quite happy to have a glass of wine or a beer on the odd occasion and to be quite sensible and normal in that consumption.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21184. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has the Government made towards ensuring all eligible New Zealand four-year-olds get a B4 School health check? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 B4 School checks are a comprehensive free health and development check for 4-year-olds to make sure they are well set up for school. I can advise the House that in the past 2½ years children have received over 100000 B4 School checks. About one-fifth of these kids have been identified with eyesight hearing or developmental problems and have been referred to appropriate services. In making this programme work better we are not only making kids’ health better but improving their education and their ability to interact in the community. I contrast the 100000 in the last 2½ years with the 3000 achieved by the previous Government before it left office. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What enhancements is the ministry making to this preventive health programme? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Ministry of Health has entered into a partnership with Sir Richard Taylor’s television characters the WotWots to promote B4 School checks. Already we are receiving positive comments. These include feedback from a coordinator in Invercargill who said that using the WotWots colouring-in book she was able to keep the kids occupied with recognising their shapes colours and numbers which assisted her assessment of the kids while at the same time she talked to their parents about their children.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this evening. As a result I seek leave of the House for the House to rise to return at 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Third Readings 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs: I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time.
Urgent Debates Declined — Rugby World Cup Opening—Overcrowding and Transport Issues 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Rugby World Cup Opening—Overcrowding and Transport Issues 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Rugby World Cup Opening—Overcrowding and Transport Issues 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the planning ministerial oversight and performance of the Auckland transport network and other factors that contributed to the chaos in downtown Auckland ahead of the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony on Friday 9 September 2011. 
I accept that the performance of the Auckland transport network and the events that contributed to chaos in downtown Auckland ahead of the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony are a particular case of recent occurrence that could require the immediate attention of the House. For there to be an urgent debate however there must be administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The concept of ministerial responsibility for a matter qualifying for an urgent debate is narrower than it is in respect of questions for oral answer which encompass any matter relating to public affairs with which the Minister has an official connection under Standing Order 369(a). 
The fact that questions have been addressed to Ministers about the matter does not necessarily mean that it involves ministerial responsibility on which an urgent debate can be founded. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case which it is sought to debate. The matter does not give grounds for an urgent debate under Standing Order 380. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Henare Tau: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Hitchhiker! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I say to “Boy” that he would know all about that. As the chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee I first of all pay my respects to the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan who during the process was of great assistance to the estate of Pukepuke Tangiora. 
I reiterate what my colleague on our committee Mita Ririnui said: the gestation of the issue before the House has been a very long one. My colleague mentioned 1936; in 1936 my great-grandfather was still a member of this House and that is a long long time ago. It shows us how long the process has been to get to this point where we will actually overturn what Parliament decided in 1943. So I am over the moon that we can say that to this whanau. 
After this bill was introduced it came to our select committee during not this Parliament but the Parliament before when I the Hon Georgina te Heuheu Dr Pita Sharples Mita Ririnui and even our then chairman Dave Hereora were members. We first got this submission from the estate of Pukepuke Tangiora and there were two living descendants who came to us. Unfortunately through this whole process one has passed away and there is only one survivor. 
What the bill does is exactly what my colleague Mita Ririnui said it does. That is it takes away the State’s interference in what is essentially a personal matter. It actually goes back to the original last will and testament of Pukepuke Tangiora. I for one was gobsmacked when I read about and delved into this particular topic to find that Parliament could overturn somebody’s last will and testament. It was Pukepuke Tangiora’s last words on a piece of paper so I was very very surprised that Parliament was able to overturn those wishes. I think what we will do tonight is make a grand gesture to that family. 
Finally I say in response to Mita Ririnui and the opportunities that he says we may have missed—that is having a good hard look at the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—that I am very hopeful that in the new Parliament we will get to review the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act because it is over 15 years old. It was brought to the House primarily to stop the alienation of Maori land. I think that now that we have grown as a people it is time for us to review that law in terms of how Maori go ahead and move forward as the economic powerhouse that they are. 
Having said all of that I say thank you to the Minister of Maori Affairs. I say thank you to the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for bringing this finally to the House and for ending a very very long long journey tonight. Kia ora.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Rugby World Cup Opening—Overcrowding and Transport Issues 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Rugby World Cup Opening—Overcrowding and Transport Issues 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the planning ministerial oversight and performance of the Auckland transport network and other factors that contributed to the chaos in downtown Auckland ahead of the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony on Friday 9 September 2011. 
I accept that the performance of the Auckland transport network and the events that contributed to chaos in downtown Auckland ahead of the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony are a particular case of recent occurrence that could require the immediate attention of the House. For there to be an urgent debate however there must be administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The concept of ministerial responsibility for a matter qualifying for an urgent debate is narrower than it is in respect of questions for oral answer which encompass any matter relating to public affairs with which the Minister has an official connection under Standing Order 369(a). 
The fact that questions have been addressed to Ministers about the matter does not necessarily mean that it involves ministerial responsibility on which an urgent debate can be founded. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case which it is sought to debate. The matter does not give grounds for an urgent debate under Standing Order 380. The application is therefore declined.
Bridges Simon: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Maori Purposes Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great privilege to speak on the Maori Purposes Bill. I do not know whether we will have any more bills from the Maori Affairs Committee before the end of this Parliament and I do not know what will happen after the election. I do not know whether there will still be a National Government and whether the Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key—if he is Prime Minister—will see fit to put me back on this great select committee. So I pay tribute to the Hon Tau Henare. Some may say he is a hothead and granted I do have doubts about a man who drives a beaten-up red Audi in west Auckland but on this bill and on many many others before our select committee—and we are one of the busiest in terms of bills—he has chaired the committee with aplomb. I pay him the highest compliment I can pay a chair which is that he has had the discipline not to insert himself into the committee process but to be impartial to stand back. So he has done a very good job indeed. I pay tribute also to Minister te Heuheu and Minister Pita Sharples for their roles in this bill. 
The bill of course has a real history to it which we have heard from— 
Paul Quinn 
: Valedictory. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I say to Paul Quinn that it will not be my valedictory I think. Previous speakers have outlined the real history of this bill. I do not intend to go through that or to speak for very long. 
The bill is an omnibus bill. I pick up on one of the central debates in this section of this evening. The Hon Shane Jones said that really in this bill we are doing a pretty small set of things; the changes—to the extent that there are changes—are just administrative. I agree with my colleague the member Paul Quinn that actually the bill does a fair bit more than that. That is just another illustration of the differences between Labour and National. There is a common theme in what we are doing in this bill: we are improving Maori lives we are getting the State out of people’s lives and we are really being aspirational for the Maori people. 
Bill read a second time. 
The bill was divided into the Maori Purposes Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper270. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The bills divided from that bill are set down for third reading forthwith.
Davis Kelvin: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Davis Kelvin: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate my colleague Stuart Nash on the eloquence and detail of his speech. I also acknowledge what Sue Kedgley said about double-speak in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill because the title of this bill is a misnomer. There are no actual guarantees that the environment will be protected. 
The other double-speak I would like to raise in the very short time I have is that in the Minister for the Environment’s first reading speech he said this bill is about having an efficient public service where we group like activities together under one roof. That is double-speak for cuts to public services. 
Debate interrupted.