edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Copeland Gordon: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15238] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call in response to the further comments from the Associate Minister of Commerce Judith Tizard in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper 154 which I gave a very full—I think—and complete explanation on earlier to members. She has said that she is deeply opposed to any extension of the current section 88—namely I guess from cable to satellite—but without actually giving any background or rationale for her position. In that respect she is at one with Mr Finlayson who likewise gave no rationale or explanation as to why he believes that my Supplementary Order Paper on section 88 is misplaced. 
I think that is a rather disappointing standard of debate on a serious matter. The questioning that the Commerce Committee subjected Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to in relation to this issue when it came to the select committee for its financial review subsequent to the second reading of this bill was quite complete and detailed. It was absolutely clear to all of us in the select committee that TVNZ was under the complete misapprehension that my Supplementary Order Paper obliged it in all circumstances to allow its programmes to be retransmitted by say Sky or TelstraClear for free. That was the whole objection. We pointed out that no TVNZ would get an extra revenue stream from it because of the higher ratings and the higher audience numbers and both the chairman and the chief executive agreed with that. They said “That’s right we do. We get an extra revenue stream.” We explained that the ownership of the programme remains with them at all times because it is being retransmitted only—there is no transfer of ownership it is still theirs and all the advertising revenue is still theirs. They agreed with that. But they had no understanding at all that my Supplementary Order Paper proposed an alternative—namely a licensing scheme under which they would be able to charge a fee to Sky or TelstraClear. They had no understanding of that at all. 
So I am disappointed that their misunderstanding which is factually incorrect seems to have somehow conveyed itself to the members of both Labour and the National Party who on the basis of this complete misunderstanding have said they are not going to vote for the Supplementary Order Paper but that at some time when they get round to it they will look at the whole matter. What is going to change between now and the future? I have no idea. Really I just want to say I am rather disappointed that such a superficial result has come about. There has been no justification or explanation as to why the particular view against my Supplementary Order Paper which is sane and reasonable has got to the point where people have decided it is not workable and that somehow the issue needs to be reviewed in the future. I think that is the ultimate cop-out. We hear time after time “It is too complex. We will do it later.” No it is not complex; it is very simple and we should be doing it now.
Jones Dail: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15235] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not on the select committee when the submissions were being heard—I was not even a member of Parliament at the time—so my knowledge of the select committee process is non-existent. But I have taken the opportunity of reading the second reading speeches which have been very very helpful. I must also thank Mr Finlayson for his very detailed helpful and informative viewpoint on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill itself and on Supplementary Order Paper 193. 
New Zealand First wants to make sure that it keeps up with technology. Someone was not sure whether the Internet had come into existence in 1994. I think in 1994 we were probably all still using Commodore 64s and just moving to using more updated IBM computers and suchlike. There has been a remarkable explosion of technology in the last 13 or 14 years. Some of us have even come to grips with things like iPods of various descriptions. I am told—and after reading the second reading speeches I know—that I am even possibly committing an offence when I put a CD on to my iPod. That might not be legally allowed. Well it is about time we had some legislation that brings matters up to date. 
There has been criticism of the bill to the effect that more could have been done. That is always the case with legislation; more always can be done. But usually when we try to do more and more the bill tends to languish in the Minister’s office for longer and longer and nothing ever actually happens. Half a loaf is better than no bread at all. It is very interesting to read the legislation and to see how matters have been brought up to date. 
The issue of the proposed amendment by Mr Copeland has been raised. New Zealand First will not be supporting Mr Copeland’s amendment. Effectively New Zealand First will be supporting the bill as it has been reported back. We will be supporting the amendments. It all makes sense and if I was in any doubt at all I am not now thanks to Mr Finlayson’s comments.
Copeland Gordon: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15229] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill. I simply say that if the Government speakers—and we have now had quite an array of them—are determined to run a filibuster on a bill that has the unanimous support of the House then I would like to sow the thought in their minds that it might be appropriate to move that the House rises early so that we can all get on with something else. I do not think it is necessary for us to sit here and have repetitious speeches covering the ground that has already been covered adequately by Dr Richard Worth and others. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Worth Richard: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15228] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We are being treated to an unusual event tonight and the unusual event tonight is that the Labour-led Government is in disarray and panic. We have heard a series of speakers on the Government side saying nothing of consequence at all and saying it with an apparent sincerity which I do not accept and with an apparent earnestness which I do not accept. That makes us wonder what in fact is happening behind the scenes in this Government. 
We know that the Order Paper is very short. We know that this is a short bill; it has five clauses. We know that the points have been thoroughly canvassed yet a string of speakers two of whom are Ministers have spent a substantial amount of the Committee’s time talking about aspects of the bill. So let me talk about an aspect of the bill that has not been spoken of at any great length. It concerns an issue that Mr Copeland and I both raised in the earlier contributions we made and it is this issue of junk bonds against the type of debt security offered by local government. I made the point and he has followed up on it that local government securities at a previous time were popular securities well removed from the junk bond class. 
We have a situation in New Zealand at the moment with Blue Chip. With these finance companies there are for many investors huge tensions huge difficulties and huge losses. I would just express the hope in that context that the Commerce Commission and the Securities Commission which are well resourced take the steps that are appropriate to be taken in pursuing those who have been responsible for setting up these schemes or their implementation. What is the relevance of that to this bill? It is a very easy linkage. What this bill will offer when enacted is a security pathway that will be attractive to I guess what one might call mum and dad investors. So I invite you Mr Chairperson to close down this debate so we are not treated to more of these games of vexatious play that the Government for some unknown reason has embarked upon.
Hereora Dave: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15228] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to have a short call on the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill. I just want to remind the previous speaker that simply the intention surrounding this bill is to lower compliance costs. At the end of the day that is exactly what the bill is designed to do. The Government is committed to strengthening the way in which councils may operate and serve their constituencies. The bill will reduce compliance costs for local authorities as well as allow them greater ability to fund long-term investments such as infrastructure. 
As a member of the Commerce Committee I think it is important to talk about some of the submitters who came to us and some of the comments they raised. Submissions were received from the Auckland City Council the Auckland Regional Council Local Government New Zealand the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers and the Property Council. These submitters raised about five main issues with us. One in particular was the criminal liability aspect. Submitters said that councillors should be exempted from criminal liability because they are similar to a Minister of the Crown who is not criminally liable in such circumstances. I suppose that the committee in raising that issue gave some serious consideration to submitters’ concerns surrounding that. 
The other issue was the proposed requirement that only two councillors sign an investment statement and the fact that that may lower investment confidence. That again was designed to lower compliance costs. In respect of indemnities in insurance submitters said that local authorities should be exempt from sections 61 and 61B of the Securities Act. In respect of trustees submitters said that local authorities should be exempt from the requirement to appoint a trust of the debt security as is the case for the Crown the Reserve Bank the National Provident Fund and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
I thought it was important to highlight some of the issues those submitters had raised with the committee and to reiterate that the level of disclosure required for local councils under the original Act was burdening them with unnecessary compliance costs. The original Act also required all councillors to sign off on a prospectus that essentially required unanimous agreement in council for a project or for issuing debt to fund a project. Again I just reiterate that the whole intention of this bill and the commitment from this Government is to lower compliance costs. Kia ora.
Dalziel Lianne: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15220] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call in the Committee stage of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill to thank members for their contributions to the debate. I understand that my colleague the Hon Paul Swain made reference to the time frame for the repeal of the previous exemption that existed in the securities legislation for local authorities. I think that to say it has taken a long time to put it back ignores another reality which is that I do not think that when the Government of the day actually removed the exemption it believed that the consequences would be as significant as they were. In fact it really was not until this Government set up a Central / Local Government Forum that was able to talk about the issues facing local government that we realised that this issue was one that had been of concern to local government. 
So the issue was able to be brought to the table and the Prime Minister undertook as soon as it was brought to her attention to take it to the relevant Minister who was me as the Minister of Commerce. We set about bringing about this legislative change quite quickly once we had got it on to the legislative timetable. In fact we announced this change last year and here we are on 1 April seeing the bill through virtually its final stage. There is only one more stage to go this week. The bill will be passed by the end of the week and I know that many local authorities are looking forward to this legislative change. 
I appreciate the Commerce Committee’s work as well because this bill does not reinstate exactly what existed before. I think it would be a mistake for people to think that we have not modernised the framework so that it is now more in line with what one would expect in this environment. 
I have made the point in more than one of the contributions I have made on this bill that it is very timely to have quality debt products available for those whom I would describe as not being sophisticated investors. We have seen people who believed they were investing in a secure product sometimes because it involved land—for some reason people think that buying an apartment off the plans is somehow a secure investment—without having the proper checks and balances in place. This bill puts a good product back on the market which enables those investors to feel some confidence in that regard. 
That being said local authorities will not be able to give guarantees unless the product is Government guaranteed so those particular issues need to be addressed as well. Unless the product is guaranteed under the Public Finance Act local authorities will not be able to say that it is but it certainly is a lot more secure than some of the investments we have seen people investing their hard-earned money in. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15212] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15211] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to support the title and commencement date as proposed in the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. Yes our economy is dependent on our environment. It is also dependent on trade on the ability of organisms and livestock to move between countries and on our ability to be able to import and export. 
It is for that reason that I stand to support the commencement date particularly and also to applaud the Primary Production Committee on the very quick and thorough work it has done in looking at this bill so that it can proceed and so that this legislation can be put in place quickly. 
I was present when the Proprietors of Taharoa C Block a Maori corporation talked with the Prime Minister about the importance of being able to import the particular plant it needed to go into a very important and successful biofuels venture it is working on. I have listened carefully to what the previous speaker Metiria Turei from the Green Party has argued. I really do not believe that people who have worked with the environment for many many decades—people who have at their basis the understanding of the importance of our land and the spirituality of that land being the people who are concerned with this particular Maori corporation—would ask the Prime Minister to see to the speedy resolution of this issue if they believed that our environment would be at risk as a result. 
So I can stand up and happily support the commencement date of this bill. We need this legislation to be put in place quickly. That was reinforced by people in the Waikato area and beyond in relation to the importance of some of the issues they are working on. I support what previous speakers have said about the importance to the equine industry—in particular the horse breeding industry—of not having things frozen unnecessarily while we address the unforeseen consequences of a court case that I do not think anyone in this country saw coming. 
We had this situation before us. We have acted promptly. I believe that that is what New Zealanders would want to occur because we are a country that is reliant on the freedom of movement in that way. We needed to deal with this matter urgently and we have done so. I congratulate the Minister and also the members of the select committee on dealing with it in a quick and thorough way.
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15212] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15210] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call but the member has accused those who are supporting this bill of misleading the public. She says that the Department of Conservation made submissions that opposed the bill and asks whether we would like to explain why. I tell the Committee that the member and the Green Party were supplied with the following email which I will read out. I suggest to Ms Turei that when a member gets up in this Chamber that member should at least balance what he or she says with some facts. Here is the email that the Green Party was supplied with from the Department of Conservation: “Notwithstanding the assertion in the article”—the article on the Stuff website—“that ‘the Department of Conservation had been cut out of the consultation at Cabinet level’ the Department of Conservation is in fact satisfied that it was consulted on this matter in 2006-07 and more recently on the draft bill and Cabinet papers. Our early view in 2006 was that there was insufficient justification given the information to hand to warrant the proposed changes. That context changed with the National Beekeepers’ Association court case. DOC acknowledged the legal advice MAF had received on the risk MAF faced and that Cabinet has agreed to the need for legislative change. DOC was consulted on the draft bill proposed some changes that were accepted and is satisfied that the draft bill intends to address the immediate legal issues faced by MAF.” 
If the member has had that email—and I know the Green Party has—I ask why on earth she has not acknowledged it here instead of going on in the tirade way she did. I do not think that is a particularly honest way of debating. If the member knows the content of the email she should have acknowledged it here. This is the truth: the Department of Conservation has been consulted and has acceded to this bill because the department knows that the legislation is necessary because of the court case. That should at least be acknowledged as being the facts of the matter by Ms Turei.
Choudhary Ashraf: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15206] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Aleikum salaam. I take this brief call. As has been said earlier this bill was necessary. The Primary Production Committee had to rather hurriedly consider the bill; although I would not like to call the consideration urgent it was hurried. 
Clearly there was an issue for the industry in terms of trade. As has been said by the previous speaker there was an issue about the trade of horses between New Zealand and Australia. So this bill was necessary. 
The select committee was sort of blamed by some submitters for the hurried consideration of the bill. Clearly this bill was required because of the court case. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had received advice from Crown Law that this bill was necessary. The bill was referred to the select committee and we did a great job in having additional sittings to get the bill through. We heard 15 submitters and we came up with some amendments. Hopefully the bee-keepers are happy with the amendments. It was important that the bill be done in that time frame. 
We had advice from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade as well to make sure that our overseas trade did not suffer as a result of this bill. With that I commend this bill.
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15205] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the commencement date and also to concur with a comment made earlier by the Minister about the urgency for this legislation. I thank the Minister for having now received the report back from the Primary Production Committee being prepared to move the bill through the House as quickly as possible. 
There was urgency around this legislation. I think it would be fair to say that the select committee remained to be convinced of its urgency as we started the deliberation but then when we saw a letter from Crown Law that quite categorically told the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that it should not issue any new import health standards nor should it amend any other import health standards there was clearly a situation whereby trade at our borders was being slowed quite considerably or halted. That required very urgent action by the Minister and I congratulate him on doing that. 
I shall give the Committee an example. New Zealand has had a regular trade of horses with Australia that has existed for many many years. During the latter part of last year Australia had a serious outbreak of equine influenza that caused the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to act quite quickly and correctly to stop the further importation of horses from Australia. To move from that situation required an amendment to a well-established import health standard. 
It would have been the ministry’s intention to move that amendment through to have an amended import health standard and to allow the recommencement of the equine trade between Australia and New Zealand provided of course that the authorities were completely satisfied that we were not about to introduce equine influenza into New Zealand. 
The Crown Law opinion made it absolutely clear that the process of developing the amended import health standard could not be progressed further unless we managed to change this legislation. That is a very practical example of the need for urgency around the legislation. 
The select committee received a number of submissions from members of the equine industry who said they actually do not understand the issue around the import health standard with regard to the importation of honey or the import health standard situation around the importing of pork. But they desperately needed the recommencement of this equine trade between the two countries which is worth many hundreds of millions of dollars. They were a group of submitters who made a very strong case to the select committee for urgency on the issue to be required. 
I speak completely in support of the title clause 1 and of an urgent commencement date clause 2 with regard to this legislation.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15205] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I would like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their constructive engagement here. I want to answer just a couple of points raised about the work of the review panel. I am advised that Biosecurity New Zealand has discussed with the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand that the future review should cover whether  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 could mask the diagnosis of American foul brood. So that is already on the agenda. 
Also Biosecurity New Zealand discussed with the National Beekeepers’ Association the review that looked at whether there is any evidence that  
Paenibacillus alvei  
caused disease or was a food safety issue. We can find no evidence of that at the moment. Finally Biosecurity New Zealand has invited the National Beekeepers’ Association to work with it and to suggest issues that the association would like the independent review panel to consider as part of its work. 
I do not think there can be any doubt that there is goodwill towards working this issue through. The scientific evidence should stand on its own merits. I do not have any fear about that and the sooner there is a complete acceptance of the evidence base of our biosecurity system by all New Zealanders the better because that is what it is meant to achieve. We are proud of our biosecurity system because in many countries the only science that is engaged in is political science. That does not have much to do with evidential science. New Zealand can be proud of its biosecurity system in terms of its scientific evidence base. This bill will go a long way towards assuring people there are independent checks when there is any doubt and that has to be good for us all. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 7A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15205] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15203] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call as a follow up to the issue of the review panel. I think it is very important to realise that the amendment is very important because there is no research that suggests that this organism  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 has any adverse effect. Clearly there is only one scientist in New Zealand who has suggested there is a potential problem but there is no clear difficulty with this pathogen. The scientists in Australia are suggesting there is no problem with this pathogen and in New Zealand there is only one scientist who knows a little bit about honey who is suggesting there is a potential problem—there is no clear defined problem in this case. 
I am really delighted that it has been agreed that the director-general will set up a scientific review panel. I am really glad because being a scientist myself I believe it is important that this should be looked at closely then if there is a problem at least we will have the time—a 90-day period—to sort this out. Otherwise at this stage there is no research that suggests that this pathogen is a problem for the honey industry or the honey bee itself. 
So with this brief call I want to make clear that I am really delighted that a scientific review panel has been set up to clarify this issue because clearly at this stage there is no research to suggest this pathogen has any adverse effect. Thank you.
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15201] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
New clause 2A not agreed to.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15200] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The public’s right to know—I agree with that absolutely. So let the public know this and let the representative of the Maori Party in this Parliament Mrs Turia know this too—and this addresses the issue of taking more time extending this and going on for quite a long time talking about it. Right now we have 500 import health standards that have been passed and they cover somewhere around 4000 or 5000 individual commodities that are imported into this country many of them from poor countries and many from rich ones. All those import health standards are now up for legal challenge—all of them—as I speak. In addition to that there are 200 current applications that cannot proceed because we are now subject to legal challenge on every single one of them. So the biosecurity system is paralysed now as we speak. How does that work if we just continue doing that—if we take more time over this while the whole biosecurity system in New Zealand grinds to a halt? If Mrs Turia wants to know whether this would have any effect on Maori—and she is always interested in that I am sure—she might like to know that the Proprietors of the Taharoa C Block supports this bill as follows: “The Proprietors of Taharoa C Block is a Maori incorporation with business investments in New Zealand and Australia. Taharoa C Block—” 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not recall at any point in the comments I have made today which were general in nature that I was representing the view of the Proprietors of Taharoa C Block Incorporation. In fact I am not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. That really is a point of debate rather than a point of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I tell Mrs Turia that the point I am making is that she is asking for delay in this bill and that a Maori incorporation has written to the Primary Production Committee asking that because of its involvement in gaining approvals to import a new biofuel plant to help reduce New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions it has been directly impacted by the freeze on issuing import health standards. The point I am making is that this kind of paralysation affects everybody in New Zealand including Maori. I would have thought that the Maori Party might know that that it might be aware of those representations at the select committee level and that it might take them into account when it is attempting to delay the implementation of this bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15199] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call the member Metiria Turei and I plead with her to concentrate on new clause 2A.
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15195] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will speak specifically to new clause 2A the amendment proposed by the Hon Tariana Turia but first of all I make a comment in response to the Green member Metiria Turei. She is correct that the Primary Production Committee received a large number of submissions that were initially opposed but the amendments that have been developed through the select committee process go a long way towards satisfying the submissions received by the select committee. The select committee wanted some independence in the process because it felt that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was both judge and jury in finally determining import health standards. The select committee has delivered that with the amendments now before the Committee. 
The second point I make is around the sunset clause proposed by the Hon Tariana Turia and I thank her for the opportunity of meeting with her this morning to discuss this. The select committee considered the necessity of a sunset clause on the legislation and would have proceeded with such a notion if it did not have confidence that it had got this legislation correct through the select committee process. The only time we would impose a sunset clause is if we did not think we had done a good enough job at the select committee. I think the select committee has done a very credible job. I think the interface between the two pieces of legislation the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act was clearly imperfect—as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal decision. I think the amendments as proposed before the Committee today greatly change the original bill as submitted to the House. I think the interface now properly reflects what Parliament intended when it passed those two pieces of legislation—the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It is my belief that a sunset clause is absolutely unnecessary and on that basis the National Party will certainly not be supporting its proposition. 
I conclude by making one other point—and the select committee commentary makes note of this. It is now within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s programme to consider a complete review of the Biosecurity Act and that is appropriate. This is important legislation that should be above politics. It is important legislation that protects the biosecurity of this country but it also allows the flow of goods into the country. We must achieve that balance. The correct review of the Biosecurity Act will occur under a time frame whereby negotiation and consultation will take place with stakeholders. That is the appropriate process rather than this guillotine approach of a sunset clause. As I said earlier a sunset clause would be suitable only if we did not have confidence that the legislation as presented back will more than satisfy the concerns of most of the industry.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15193] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I thank the member for that support. I heard the request about the pork industry’s import health standard and whether it will be subject to the same procedure as we are going through now for the Australian honey import health standard. The answer is yes it will; it will be subject to exactly the same procedures we are going through now.
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15191] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Minister could take a call relatively early in the debate. There has been an issue around Supplementary Order Paper 188 which has been tabled by the Maori Party and which concerns the independent review being made available before any decision is made to finalise and ratify the import health standard around honey. The Primary Production Committee was well aware of this issue and it moved amendments through the select committee process that the select committee understood would mean that the bee-keeping industry would certainly have the satisfaction of an independent review prior to the law being enacted. The select committee I think from memory came up with a scheme whereby there was to be a 90-day period after enactment before this import health standard would be established in which case it was hoped that the independent review would have been completed. As I understand it the Maori Party has now moved an amendment that in effect tries to strengthen this particular amendment to make sure that that happens before the final enactment. It is also my understanding that during the day and subsequent to a question answered by the Minister in the House within the last hour a further amendment is being tabled by the Minister that will satisfy the concerns of the Maori Party. Therefore to hasten the debate today it would be helpful if the Minister would take a call and explain whether that amendment has actually been laid on the Table and whether it is available for us to peruse.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15179] 
5.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What action is the Government taking to address carbon emissions from the transport sector? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 To combat growing emissions from the transport sector the Government is taking a multi-pronged approach. For example we are supporting alternatives to car travel by providing more resources and legislative support for better public transport and developing a fuel economy standard for light vehicles. With fuel prices increasing we are seizing the opportunities around electric vehicles and biofuels. We are also strengthening our coastal shipping industry so optimal use can be made of this fuel-efficient means. Of course of great importance is retaining and rebuilding the use of rail. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other comments has the Minister seen in regards to climate change and transport issues? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Last Friday I listened to National’s transport spokesperson Maurice Williamson talking to the Automobile Association’s annual meeting. When he was asked about climate change he refused to answer saying he wanted to stay a member of the National Party. This is just the tip of the iceberg. As I understand other National Party members have also avoided committing themselves to recognising climate change for the same reason. John Key says his party recognises the effects of climate change but when his members are outside the caucus room they ridicule it thereby ridiculing him. It is a similar story with National members’ mate the ACT party. It is their coalition partner and it does not believe in climate change; at least it is honest about it.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15173] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I am very happy to contact members after question time to explain the process and decision. I have met with the press gallery today and I think there has been some confusion. There is no banning of filming at all—there is in fact a reversion to the rule that applies throughout the place for members of the gallery to seek permission which has rarely if ever in my experience not been given. So I think there was a misunderstanding but I am happy to clarify that for members afterwards.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All this is very helpful but not very much in terms of the ruling. I refer members back to Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3 which relate to personal statements that are given. So they relate to what was said in the personal statement. Members are not prevented from referring to the article. Mr Locke does not deny writing the article but he has given an assurance in his personal statement that he did not support Pol Pot. It is that accusation that members should not repeat because it relates to the personal statement.
English Bill: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
English Bill: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should have raised this before you started on petitions but I just want to raise this point of order in respect of a ruling you have made on the presence of media in parts of the parliamentary complex. We respect your role as effectively the administrator of Parliament and the person who decides on its rules. We are however concerned that the decision was made and it is something of a departure from the normal historical process where a change in the rules around media access to Parliament would have been discussed with the political parties as we have discussed other issues such as broadcasting and so on. In this case that did not occur and we would be interested in getting your view on what opportunity there will be for the political parties to be part of the decision making around the access of media to Parliament since it is something that I think all of us value—the fact that in the New Zealand Parliament the media have had broad access and generally that has been without incident or trouble so the ruling is something of a departure.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Surely it is relevant that the name “Pol Pot” does not occur anywhere in the article that Keith Locke wrote and that in fact the name “Pol Pot” did not appear in Western media until some time after that. There was a change of Government in Cambodia and Mr Locke has never reneged on the fact that he welcomed a change of Government at that time. That is not the same thing as supporting Pol Pot.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 4 September 1980 during the term of a Government that Winston Peters was in with the headline “New Zealand to back Pol Pot at the UN”—that is the New Zealand Government which Winston Peters was a member of.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My point remains. This article was written by Keith Locke. He has never denied writing this article. Clearly he wishes to recant now. But I am afraid he does not have sanctuary either in what the Labour Government did in 1975; after all it supported Robert Mugabe back then as well and we know what a disaster that regime has been. With respect one has to live by one’s political decisions and this House would be the lesser for it if somehow people could have their record in this Parliament totally exonerated or expunged because they do not like what they did.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am sure that Mr Locke’s comments are accurate. All that they prove is that other people were wrong as well. Mr Locke cannot claim not to have made a mistake at that time. All that the comments show is that it was a common mistake.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have had recourse to Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3. I also hold this article here which was published in the  
Socialist Action 
 of 25 April 1975. I do not see from your ruling Madam Speaker how you can stop a member of this Parliament from saying this article is a fact just because Mr Locke does not now like it. He surely cannot find a haven in Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3 purely on the basis of his complaint. This article is his article. He has never denied that. So why are you seeking to stop members from referring to it?
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We got to a point last week where I think there was an acceptable compromise and that was that Mr Locke certainly supported the takeover by Pol Pot but he did not support the later actions. I think that if members differentiate on that basis if they indicate that Mr Locke was supportive of Pol Pot’s takeover and say nothing else then they will not be breaching your ruling.