edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18349] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Chair tena tatou o te Whare nei. Tena hoki koutou o te hau kainga ara Te Roroa mena kei te matakitaki mai mena hoki e are taringa mai tena koutou tena koutou. I acknowledge my relatives of Te Roroa who may be watching or who may even be listening to the debate on this bill concerning their Treaty claim. 
Once again I say that I have a vested interest and I say that specifically for those who belong to a group called the One New Zealand Foundation. Since the introduction of this bill they have hounded me with a number of emails suggesting that because of my vested interest I should not be participating in the debate on this bill. But I have declared that interest and my participation in this debate will always be focused on the issue and not on my own personal interest. I say that to those principals of that organisation. 
I also want to have it recorded in this Chamber that I take exception to members of that organisation making contact with my father—when he was alive—to question my whakapapa in relation to the claimants of this bill. As a consequence I have now ceased to correspond with or even talk to the person to whom I always made myself available to discuss these issues. He knows who he is but I am not going to give him the privilege of having his name recorded. 
Having got that off my chest I will speak to the preamble which I think gives a very good historical background to this claim. It highlights the importance this iwi has put on their wahi tapu. I think that it is the issues surrounding wahi tapu that have given cause for some disquiet for those who have negotiated on behalf of Te Roroa. The sites particularly some that are outside the purview of the bill have given some cause for further discussion between the representatives of Te Roroa and as I understand it the Crown. The issue of quantum has certainly been a debating point for the people of Te Roroa. The fact that some of these wahi tapu are located on land that is outside the settlement quantum is what many of Te Roroa are concerned about. 
I should say that this bill has some historical significance not only for Te Roroa but for the laws of this land. It was the report that emanated out of this claim that gave rise to legislation being introduced that excluded land in private ownership from any settlement quantum. For that I think this bill will certainly have some significance in the history of the legislation of this House. 
I also need to say that I found it a little bit disturbing that some of the original negotiators were at odds with their colleagues on the negotiation team. Given that point of difference the bill has proceeded along its way. I am not going to question that because I think it really is an issue for the people of Te Roroa.
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18345] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Normally with these sorts of bills because they are momentous in a number of ways the Opposition is given an opportunity to sit down with the Minister or the Associate Minister and receive a briefing. We are still waiting for that briefing. Funnily enough yesterday I happened to pass the Hon Michael Cullen the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and I must say a pretty damn good one. But he said to me on passing—and he looked very pale—“Oh have we given you a briefing on the Te Roroa bill?” and I happened to say “No but it’s all right; we’ve come to expect that sort of treatment by the present Government.” 
We see here an attempt to put right a wrong that happened not 100 years ago not 50 years ago but about 9 months ago or around that time when the Government could manage to cough up only $9 million and it was just not enough. The people told the Government that it was not enough. The Maori Affairs Committee was told that it was not enough. There were issues to deal with about not only the quantum but some of the valuations and some of the returning of taonga had to be sorted out. So now we are back because of the prodding of the Opposition and because of the sterling work of the select committee. I think that individual members of this House have been back and forward to the claimants having a few words about the settlement and finally the claimants have an opportunity. 
National will support the bill but not without a few kicks and a few punches here and there because I think the treatment not only of Te Roroa in this whole shambles but also of the Opposition party which has had no briefing whatsoever has been pretty terrible. In fact many Opposition members had to ring the claimants and the claimants’ lawyers to find out what was going on. If that is the way this Government wants to run things well it is no wonder that the jug has boiled over and they will be out of there within a couple of months because the country wants better from a Government especially when it is dealing with a Treaty settlement. 
This might not be the biggest Treaty settlement but for the people up there it is the biggest thing since sliced bread. So those are the opening salvos and I say “Let’s get on with it.”
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:649;Page:18181] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18181] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3); the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4); the second reading of the Public Transport Management Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Biofuel Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill; the Committee stage of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Real Estate Agents Bill the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Family Courts Matters Bill the Walking Access Bill; the first reading of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Policing Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
The motion is moved so that a range of legislation can be passed before the House has to rise before the election. That I think concludes the reasons I need to give. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3); the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4); the second reading of the Public Transport Management Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Biofuel Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill; the Committee stage of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Real Estate Agents Bill the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Family Courts Matters Bill the Walking Access Bill; the first reading of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Policing Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
The motion is moved so that a range of legislation can be passed before the House has to rise before the election. That I think concludes the reasons I need to give.
Member Vacancy — Rakaia Electoral District—Brian Connell 
Member Vacancy — Rakaia Electoral District—Brian Connell 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
Member Vacancy 
Rakaia Electoral District—Brian Connell 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Rakaia Electoral District having arisen in the period of 6 months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that electoral district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Brian David Connell 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Member Vacancy — Rakaia Electoral District—Brian Connell 
Cullen Michael: Member Vacancy — Rakaia Electoral District—Brian Connell 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Rakaia Electoral District having arisen in the period of 6 months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that electoral district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Brian David Connell 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of Rodney Hide be agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18180] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the schedule as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18179] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18179] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18179] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18178] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yet again we see the National Party misusing the point of order process. This is a non-debatable motion. You and you alone Mr Chairperson make the decision and this side of the Chamber will be happy to abide by it whatever it may be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I myself could not quite see the connection with the quality of tolerance. But I will call one senior member Dr Paul Hutchison.
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18178] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Opposition has shown considerable tolerance. The Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill is the most important bill of the term of this Parliament. Today we have had over 785 amendments tabled by the Government—785 amendments—and it seems extraordinary to me that the Government is attempting closure motions on such a critical bill in the term of this Parliament. I ask you in considering whether to allow this debate to continue to consider both the importance of this bill and the fact that only this morning we received the amendments the Government has proposed.
Fairbrother Russell: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18178] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18177] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 231 232 238 and 239 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 44A be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Field. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 148B the following new paragraph: 
(aa)The prescribed criteria in subsection (a) must include criteria requiring that the offset forestry land will sequester the carbon dioxide equivalent of the pre-1990 forestry land over time.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 A major issue has been the point of obligation. The point of obligation is that businesses and organisations will be required to monitor and report emissions. At the end of each recording period they will be required to hold a quantity of emission permits that are equal to or are more than the emissions. The bill states that the point of obligation is with the processor. It could be with the exporter or some other upstream organisation. Businesses will probably seek to pass the cost of buying the emissions permits to farmers or consumers. The Minister said that the point of obligation could be changed from being in a regulation and put on to the farmer. My view is that the farmer will pay anyway whether through regulation or through this legislation. Why should we rush this bill? This is about political expediency—that is what it is about. This afternoon we had 785 amendments that we did not see until they were tabled today. This bill is about political expediency and it is not good governance.
Robertson H V Ross: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry but I cannot accept the motion. I am just checking my notebook to see who has had a reasonable call and who has not. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: One more minute Mr Chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: One more minute Mr Tisch? In that case the member gets the call.
Sio Su'a William: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18167] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chairman. I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chauvel Charles: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18166] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18164] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I feel obliged to put on record my account of the events that the previous speaker the Hon Peter Dunne referred to. I spoke to Mr Dunne we had meetings in my office and I offered him additional briefings— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Before the bill was introduced. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —before the bill was introduced. I recall that we met also after the bill was introduced. We met at least twice. I offered additional briefings from officials if he wanted them. The member chose to withdraw support from the bill at approximately the same time that the National Party did— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: No it was actually ahead of them—1 July. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —ahead of it on 1 July—before we were in negotiations with New Zealand First and the Greens as to the amount of the compensation package. I am surprised that he has managed to take umbrage because those parties faced with the same events did not.
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18161] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I will begin by responding to one of the issues that was raised by Jacqui Dean. She showed the somewhat inconsistent stance that is being taken by the National Party. She said pricing will not incentivise behaviour in the agricultural sector. Prices seem to incentivise behaviour in every other area in the economy. Why they will not do so in agriculture I do not know. She seems to fail to understand their effectiveness. 
Jacqui Dean also said we should be investing in science. Well the Government does not just say that; we do it—we do it. This year we have invested $2.5 million through the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. In addition through the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action this year the Government contribution to research has been $5 million. Next year it increases to $10 million. The Fast Forward fund is a $700 million fund for the pastoral industry some of which is earmarked for climate change research. That is an enormous amount of Government funding matched by private sector funding but it is opposed by National of course. The Livestock Emissions Abatement Research Network an international collaboration led by New Zealand is getting $1 million per annum and that is in additional to Foundation for Research Science and Technology and Sustainable Farming Fund money. So an enormous amount will go into research. 
Allan Peachey stood up and said we should not pick on farmers. We have heard other members from National say that National thinks that farmers should be included in the scheme. Farmers are not being picked on. They are last to go into the scheme and they go in on the same principle as anyone else. They are to be grandparented for 90 percent of their 2005 emissions. 
I think that deals with the points that were raised.
Peachey Allan: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18160] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is lovely to see perseverance rewarded eventually. I come to Part 1 of the most significant piece of legislation to be brought before this House in 20-something years from the perspective of a member of Parliament who represents Tamaki one of the most urban of our electorates. The people of Tamaki will be reflecting on where this debate has been going. They will have noted members on this side of the Chamber many with very very strong rural backgrounds talking about the clauses in Part 1 that relate to agriculture to forestry and to fishing. They are asking two or three questions. Firstly they want to know what the rush is. Parliament is in its last couple of weeks of sitting before the general election. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What about the billion dollars? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: If I were a member of the New Zealand First Party at the moment I would be keeping my head down very very clearly and I would be watching my telephone very very carefully for that call that says: “Mr Woolerton this is the Serious Fraud Office. We want to talk to you.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Back to the debate. Mr Woolerton is baiting you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I come back to the issue here. This legislation as proposed can never be good legislation. In speaking to Part 1 I say that I would have thought the people of Tamaki would be thinking about those 785 amendments. Their comment and my comment to the Minister is that if one has to amend proposed legislation that many times one should start again—it is not good lawmaking. Any of the parties in this House that choose to vote for Part 1 are voting for very bad legislation. 
I would now like to turn my attention to Subpart 4 “Agriculture” in new Part 5 inserted by clause 43. The people of Tamaki are not farmers. There are no farmers in my electorate there is no forestry and I do not think there is much in the way of fishing except for recreation of course. But many of those people work in industries that come directly from the productive sector and they are asking why the Government is picking on the farmers and why the Government is so determined to wipe out 20000 to 30000 jobs from this economy when none of it is necessary. 
When I reflect on the quality of the debate before the dinner break—and I am sure the people of New Zealand noted this—the constructive positive and reflective tone of the speeches on this side was interesting. One has to compare them to the muddled confused and indecisive responses that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker gave to the issues that members on this side of the Chamber have been raising with regard to Part 1. 
It is incumbent on the Minister and I invite the Minister to take a call to finally clarify and answer the questions of my colleagues beginning with those matters raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who came right to the core of what this issue is about. Why rush?
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18154] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised in recent contributions from members. 
I refer to Dr Lockwood Smith’s questioning of the methodologies for assessment of methane emissions. It is true that it is costly to measure methane at a per-farm level or indeed at a per-animal level but none the less under the Kyoto Protocol every country in the developed world including New Zealand is already taking responsibility for methane emissions from its animals. It is important with half of our emissions coming from the agricultural sector that those emissions are included in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme; otherwise the burden of the increase in those emissions is borne by other sectors of the economy—either taxpayers or other participants in other sectors of the economy. If we do not include methane emissions the agricultural sector will not be appropriately incentivised to try to reduce them. 
In respect of the fisheries industry point raised by Phil Heatley it is a line call. The advice from officials was that we could justify not having a free allocation. The free allocation is in respect of transport fuels. We are not giving other sectors a free allocation in respect of transport fuels but none the less arguably there is justification for some free allocation and that is why having talked about these issues with the support parties we struck an agreement to have some free allocation to the fishing industry. 
In respect of Shane Ardern’s point about carbon rights for forestry this bill does what the forestry industry asked. It wanted devolution of the rights to carbon in forests. The bill devolves the benefits of carbon sequestered in new forests. It creates a liability for carbon released from old forests that are deforested—that is logged and not replanted—at higher rates than was the case historically. We cannot have devolution of the benefits but not expect devolution of the disbenefits. They are two sides of the same coin. There is an appropriate overall incentive for the forestry industry through this bill.
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18149] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Both Nick Smith and Nathan Guy have asked for some clarity as to where the point of obligation lies in respect of emissions in the agricultural sector. It is as set out in the bill as it came back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Currently it is at the processor level. The Government is happy for it to stay at the processor level. None the less we will allow that to be changed to the individual farmer level if a decision is made by regulation which must be promulgated by 30 June 2010. There are discussions through technical advisory groups with the agricultural industry to assess whether in their view it should be at the farmer level but it is clear in the legislation at the moment that the default position is the processor level. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So you don’t know. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do know. I have just told the member what it is and if he wants to read the bill he will find it in subsections (12) and (13) in section 2A to be inserted into the Climate Change Response Act the principal Act by clause 4. 
David Carter rose to his feet and asserted that the cost for a 5000 stock unit farm not using nitrogenous fertilisers would be around $150000 per annum. He is out by a factor of 20. He should talk to the National Party members on the select committee. Had he spoken to them he would be aware of the advice given to the select committee by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that showed that for sheep and beef properties with 2500 stock units the profitability effect would be around $4000 per annum after 2013 assuming that no measures to absorb carbon such as planting forests are taken. So if they do nothing the effect of a 2500 stock unit would be $4000 per annum. A 5000 stock unit would be twice that. It would be roughly $8000 whereas the estimate Mr Carter gave was around $150000 per annum. It is plainly an approximately twentyfold exaggeration. He should check with his members. 
I would expect that the agricultural spokesperson for National would do a little bit more homework before making those alarmist statements which are obviously designed to frighten New Zealand farmers rather than to elucidate the correct position. In respect of what would be the case if there was some planting on the property that stored carbon in trees perhaps on its marginal lands only a small percentage of land would have to be planted in order for there to be a profit overall from the effects of the emissions trading scheme on farming.
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18139] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much Dr Smith; that is exactly my point. When there are general debates therefore about whether climate change exists that really is not dealing with the detail listed in this very large part with the amendments that are included. So I am not asking for general speeches; I am very careful about that. Some very good speeches have been made and I can detail them through where members have made references to different provisions—to clause 7 to agriculture provisions and to the different Supplementary Order Papers. But when members tend to go on to a general debate as to why this bill is actually being put before the Committee at this time I tell them that that really is a debate for the second and third readings.
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18139] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can you just confirm for me because this Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill is in quite an unusual form in that a whole series of parts are slipped into it that as I interpret this debate on Part 1 we are in fact arguing over all of the provisions that are in Part 1: Subpart 4— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: And Subpart 5. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —Subpart 3 and Subpart 2 which take us through all of the provisions dealing with the emissions trading scheme? We are also dealing with all of the 785 amendments that have been tabled by the Minister such that this part is dealing with all of the features of introducing an emissions trading scheme.
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18136] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before I call the member I apologise to the member Craig Foss—I had to look up in the dictionary to find out what “fungibility” was.
Points of Order — Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Referral of Bill and S.O.Ps to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Points of Order — Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Referral of Bill and S.O.Ps to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18124] 
Points of Order 
Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Referral of Bill and S.O.Ps to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the very large emissions trading bill on which we have had three major Supplementary Order Papers with a total of over 780 amendments I have two points I wish to raise. The first is in respect of Standing Order 258 “Explanatory notes”. It seems extraordinary to me that Parliament on the most important bill of this term has received these very large Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister that contain no more of an explanatory note than the statement “This Supplementary Order Paper amends” the climate change bill. We are being asked to consider 785 amendments with no more of an explanation than that they amend the climate change bill. 
My second point is that in the wake of that I wish to move a motion that the bill and the Supplementary Order Papers be referred back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I seek leave to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Referral of Bill and S.O.Ps to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Referral of Bill and S.O.Ps to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18124] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the very large emissions trading bill on which we have had three major Supplementary Order Papers with a total of over 780 amendments I have two points I wish to raise. The first is in respect of Standing Order 258 “Explanatory notes”. It seems extraordinary to me that Parliament on the most important bill of this term has received these very large Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister that contain no more of an explanatory note than the statement “This Supplementary Order Paper amends” the climate change bill. We are being asked to consider 785 amendments with no more of an explanation than that they amend the climate change bill. 
My second point is that in the wake of that I wish to move a motion that the bill and the Supplementary Order Papers be referred back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I seek leave to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
[Volume:649;Page:18123] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling of course but I find it a difficult one to accept. We are in the last days of Parliament we have a case that is certainly consuming the nation and is of great concern to New Zealanders and this will be the last opportunity that we get to debate this issue before Parliament rises. You say in defence of your ruling that there were three questions for oral answer addressing confidence in the Minister. They were not questions from me; they were questions from another political party. The point of an urgent debate is that this is a matter that concerns the whole House. If having a Minister of Foreign Affairs under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office having to step aside is not a matter of urgent debate of concern to the public heaven knows what possibly could be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I suggest the member has the opportunity to read the full ruling. There will be other opportunities.
Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
[Volume:649;Page:18123] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two letters from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the stepping aside of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the announcement that the Serious Fraud Office is to undertake an investigation into donations made to the New Zealand First Party. These are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibilities. The applications are interrelated and I shall deal with them together. 
Not every ministerial resignation much less a stepping aside would justify an urgent debate—Speaker’s ruling 166/5. In this case a Minister has stood aside while an inquiry is held into allegations that do not relate to official actions taken by the Minister. The matter is obviously not concluded. When the investigation is reported members will have an opportunity to raise its conclusions if this is warranted. 
Furthermore the Privileges Committee is also carrying out an inquiry into a related question of privilege. When the committee reports there will be an opportunity for a debate. As the matter has a way to run and as last week three questions for oral answer specifically addressed confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and there was a further one today—I do not consider it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. That does not preclude an urgent debate in the future depending on the outcome of events. The applications are therefore declined. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling of course but I find it a difficult one to accept. We are in the last days of Parliament we have a case that is certainly consuming the nation and is of great concern to New Zealanders and this will be the last opportunity that we get to debate this issue before Parliament rises. You say in defence of your ruling that there were three questions for oral answer addressing confidence in the Minister. They were not questions from me; they were questions from another political party. The point of an urgent debate is that this is a matter that concerns the whole House. If having a Minister of Foreign Affairs under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office having to step aside is not a matter of urgent debate of concern to the public heaven knows what possibly could be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I suggest the member has the opportunity to read the full ruling. There will be other opportunities.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
[Volume:649;Page:18123] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two letters from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the stepping aside of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the announcement that the Serious Fraud Office is to undertake an investigation into donations made to the New Zealand First Party. These are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibilities. The applications are interrelated and I shall deal with them together. 
Not every ministerial resignation much less a stepping aside would justify an urgent debate—Speaker’s ruling 166/5. In this case a Minister has stood aside while an inquiry is held into allegations that do not relate to official actions taken by the Minister. The matter is obviously not concluded. When the investigation is reported members will have an opportunity to raise its conclusions if this is warranted. 
Furthermore the Privileges Committee is also carrying out an inquiry into a related question of privilege. When the committee reports there will be an opportunity for a debate. As the matter has a way to run and as last week three questions for oral answer specifically addressed confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and there was a further one today—I do not consider it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. That does not preclude an urgent debate in the future depending on the outcome of events. The applications are therefore declined.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18121] 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any reports from medical professionals about potential changes to the accident compensation system? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen a report from an overwhelming number of medical professionals including physiotherapists podiatrists and osteopaths who describe patients’ experiences of National’s previous privatisation of accident compensation as a nightmare a disaster chaotic and confusing. If the public does not want it and experts do not want it then just who is National’s privatisation plan meant to benefit? 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any research on which groups are likely to miss out on cover for their injuries under a privatised scheme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. Australian research shows that those in the lower socio-economic groups are unsurprisingly more often uninsured or underinsured and do not pursue compensation through the legal system because they cannot afford it. John Key is not listening to the professionals or to patients about how privatisation will affect ordinary Kiwis. In fact to paraphrase Barack Obama it is not just because John Key does not care; it is because John Key does not get it.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18119] 
9.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps if any is the Minister taking to ensure the safety and well-being of patients at Auckland City Hospital’s acute psychiatric unit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am satisfied that following an independent review earlier this year Auckland District Health Board has begun making extensive changes to its adult mental health services to improve the safety and well-being of patients. These include appointing a new head of psychiatry in the department extensive changes to nursing accountabilities and rosters and new reporting mechanisms through to the Ministry of Health which will follow up on the full implementation of the recommendations. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that the man whose body was found floating under Wynyard Wharf in Auckland on Sunday 17 August had been discharged from Auckland City Hospital’s acute psychiatric unit very shortly before he died? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have received no specific briefing on the identity of that gentleman. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why does the Minister think it acceptable that despite the small number of changes he outlined in his earlier answer Te Whetu Tawera continues to deal with patient safety and releases inappropriately and what action will he take to ensure incidents like this latest one will not happen again; does he really think that changing the designations of nurses and changing a few rosters will deal with the seriousness of the situation in Auckland? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I hope the member will forgive me if I did not capture in one answer to a parliamentary question all of the changes that are being made. Very significant changes are being made in those mental health services and they include a full review of the security arrangements—including the discharge arrangements—for patients needing supervision. I have also further given a commitment to the member that I will expect the full implementation of recommendations from the independent review. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Government have any longer-term strategies in Auckland to ensure that there are more spaces available in quality rehabilitation units—at the moment there is only one—and that there is sufficient step-down accommodation community support and accommodation services for patients such as the gentleman who was recently released in these circumstances? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am advised that there are further increases in the community-based acute mental health provision following from that review and also that there are enhancements to the cultural training and practice of staff at Auckland mental health services.