edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15071] 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the implications for New Zealand of current developments in international economies and financial markets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is clear that the global economy is recovering from the recent financial crisis but there are a number of uncertainties and risks. For instance emerging economies are experiencing a strong recovery and our trade with those economies is growing. However developed economies are recovering more slowly and economies such as the UK and the US are adopting policies that tend to devalue their exchange rates and therefore create a headwind for our export recovery. That reinforces the need for New Zealand to continue along a path of improving our competitiveness so that we can achieve faster growth and sustainable jobs. 
Craig Foss 
: What commitments have New Zealand and other Asia-Pacific countries made to help overcome their current economic challenges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: At a recent meeting of APEC Finance Ministers there were a number of common views—for instance countries with current account deficits should take steps to boost domestic savings and those with surpluses should take steps to increase domestic demand; we should continue moving towards more market-determined exchange rate systems that reflect the underlying economic fundamentals rather than competitive devaluation of currencies; and we should ensure sound fiscal management. There was unanimous support from finance Ministers across well over a dozen economies for those propositions. 
Craig Foss 
: How does New Zealand’s economic programme compare with the approach outlined by APEC Finance Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s current comprehensive economic programme is very much in line with the general international consensus. In particular there is some real interest in New Zealand’s tax package because it is seen as a concrete measure that is helping this country move away from borrowing and consumption towards favouring exports savings and investment and in that sense it is undoing the severe damage done to the economy by the last Government. 
Craig Foss 
: What kinds of economic policies were rejected by APEC Finance Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The policies that were rejected not just by the APEC Finance Ministers but I think by most economies around the world were wasteful and fast-growing Government spending ad hoc and opportunistic changes to tax systems larger deficits fiddling with monetary policy and trying to pretend the exchange rate can be fixed. Those are essentially the policies of the current Labour Opposition.
Carter David: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Carter David: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15070] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
:  
I take this opportunity to thank the various speakers for their contributions today including the silence from the previous Minister for Biosecurity Jim Anderton. 
No one should underestimate the challenge of biosecurity for this country with 175000 items a day crossing our borders. This is a time for a rational approach armed with the best possible information but we should not underestimate the seriousness of what we are dealing with. We now need to quickly establish what strain of  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae  
is in New Zealand because that will tell us the seriousness of the situation. 
I take this opportunity to assure all members of Parliament who have a biosecurity spokespersonship role that I will work closely with them updating them with information as it comes to hand. As I said earlier the best response to this emergency will come if we work collaboratively for all New Zealanders working to make sure we protect the interests of New Zealand’s biosecurity. That is what is at stake today.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15069] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to join with other members who have spoken and said that this is a time for calm heads but those calm heads cannot become a cover for complacency. We have a situation where a major threat to one of our very large primary industries has emerged. Some 20000 people are employed in the industry and it is worth $1.5 billion in exports to New Zealand. The situation clearly has to be managed extremely carefully. But we cannot afford for the problem to get out of control. We have seen other countries where the situation has arisen and terrific damage has been done both to the kiwifruit vines particularly the gold kiwifruit vines and to the long-term viability of the industry. 
The steps to which the Minister has alluded to date give some comfort that we are approaching the matter in a considered and proper way but I guess that until the results from the tests over the next week or so become apparent there will be a considerable degree of apprehension and anxiety in the industry. I think the best thing we can do to paraphrase the previous speaker Jim Anderton is for this House to give the industry the charity of our concern and perhaps our non-political silence at this time.
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15069] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 As a former Minister for Biosecurity who was constantly under attack by the then Opposition National Party when new incursions occurred in New Zealand I will give the present Government the dignity of my silence on this matter.
Sharples Pita: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Sharples Pita: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15069] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. The Maori Party stands in support of the Government in responding to the urgent need to address the issues affecting the kiwifruit industry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: On a string. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is called a coalition bro. This situation has come upon the House with some urgency with the identification last night of the bacteria known as  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae  
(Psa) as having infected New Zealand kiwifruit vines. This is a major issue that threatens the stability of a key industry and we are certainly keen to provide the support necessary to contain the vine-killing bacteria. As we understand it the identification of Psa has already struck fear in the hearts of this very significant industry not only for New Zealand but also for Maori. At the end of last year kiwifruit packaging company Te Awanui Huka Pak won the rights to a $24.2 million deal with New Zealand’s largest kiwifruit grower. It was a major step forward for Maori businesses so we have been thinking particularly of Tauranga Maori who are now the biggest shareholders of Seeka. In the context of Maori business this is extremely significant. They are a collection of Maori trusts that have invested in primary production and in fact in the whole value chain. We support the Government’s actions— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What about the yellow one? Brown on the outside yellow in the inside? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Has the member finished his video? Goodness me! We support the Government’s actions. We want to ensure a healthy kiwifruit export market and we do so by supporting the hard work of all growers who participate in the kiwifruit industry. Boy that was hard work! Tautoko ana i te Pati Maori i te mahi o te kawanatanga. Kia ora ra.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15068] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the statement of the Minister for Biosecurity regarding the discovery of  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae 
 in the Bay of Plenty. As others members have said kiwifruit are a vital part of New Zealand’s horticultural industry and despite their ancestry have become a New Zealand icon. Internationally kiwifruit is still an emerging product with exciting innovation and new varietals. In addition to the established Hayward there are the sweet green the Zespri the ENZAGold and the new ENZARed. 
It is ACT’s hope that new kiwifruit varieties regardless of who produces or markets them will soon be able to be freely exported to international markets and that the current situation in the Bay of Plenty will not hinder that export in any way. We join with the rest of the House in expressing our hope that the extent of the outbreak can quickly be established and that the measures taken by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand and those in the kiwifruit industry themselves will be enough to see the contamination contained.
Hague Kevin: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Hague Kevin: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15068] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The kiwifruit industry is a significant part of our economy and any threat to it must be dealt with with the utmost seriousness. We support the Government’s action to date in responding to this incursion and we also support the Minister’s call for calm. Inevitably there will be questions to be addressed in the wake of this incident about the adequacy of our biosecurity preparedness. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand says it is world leading and as we are the nation in the world with the most biodiversity and arguably the greatest reliance on natural capital in our economy it needs to be. 
The Green Party earlier in the House has questioned whether a biosecurity approach based on risk profiling and selective practices was adequate. We have questioned the appropriateness of cutting funding and front-line staff positions in biosecurity as this Government has done. We have pointed out the gaping hole in our biosecurity defences against micro-organisms. All of these matters will need to be addressed. 
Finally although other parties have tended to ridicule the Green Party’s attitude to free-trade agreements this latest incursion must surely cause everyone to pause for thought. We need to have a smart economy that delivers real benefits for everyone and for the environment. Biosecurity incursions such as this one highlight the extraordinarily high price that can be associated with a policy that has seen hugely increased imports often of goods or products of very limited usefulness. 
In conclusion I wish to offer the Green Party’s support to the Government in the attempts to identify isolate and if possible eliminate the threat posed by  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
. Thank you.
O'Connor Damien: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
O'Connor Damien: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15067] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to firstly offer full support for the kiwifruit industry. It is a very worrying time with the discovery of  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae  
(Psa) this kiwifruit vine disease. The disease was discovered by an orchardist the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was notified and as the Minister of Agriculture said we have had confirmation of it today. This is a $1.4 billion industry and provides 20 percent of the GDP for the Bay of Plenty. It is a worrying time for all of those people involved and I rise on behalf of Labour to support all of the people involved in working through this very very cautiously. 
It is a time not to raise alarm. As the Minister said we have already had contact from our trading partners and we want to reassure them that we are doing everything possible to get on top of—and hopefully eliminate—this disease. 
We can be comforted if it is possible in the knowledge that Psa has existed in Japan for 25 years and production has continued there. We have in New Zealand a very coordinated kiwifruit industry and we have a good biosecurity organisation in MAF Biosecurity New Zealand if somewhat hamstrung by recent cuts. But we are not sure and we will have to wait a week or so until we know whether this is the virulent strain the one that has caused so much havoc in Italy. The potential for loss as I said is huge but at this stage there is no effect on the fruit produced from the vines and we hope that there will be no impact on our trading ability. 
The Opposition would be remiss if it did not identify some of the potential pressures that biosecurity has been under. Although the Minister and the Prime Minister have reassured the House that no cuts occurred the facts are somewhat different. In 2009 54 front-line staff were cut from biosecurity services by that Minister and last year although there was money for biosecurity it went into the joint border management system which is effectively a new computer system. What we saw “reprioritised” to use the Government’s words were cuts to biosecurity policy border security systems development and maintenance border security monitoring and clearance domestic biosecurity surveillance and biosecurity incursion response and long-term pest management. We hope as the Opposition that none of those cuts hinders in any way the ability of MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to get on top of this potentially alarming and drastic disease for the kiwifruit industry. We hope that the Government sees the value in increasing the money for biosecurity to prevent such a horrific disease spreading throughout New Zealand.
Carter David: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
Carter David: Ministerial Statements — Kiwifruit—Confirmation of Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Actinidiae Vine Bacteria 
[Volume:668;Page:15067] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Last Friday at 4 p.m. the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was informed of the suspected discovery of  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) on a single orchard in Te Puke. The ministry and the kiwifruit industry quickly initiated a response to determine the extent of spread and options for dealing with the disease. Last night test results confirmed Psa. 
The immediate focus is on determining what strain of Psa it is and how widely spread the disease is and containing it if possible. The ministry is working closely with the kiwifruit industry on an operating strategy and considerable resources are being made available to the response. Technical experts from the ministry Zespri and Plant and Food Research are on the orchard today. Industry meetings are under way and growers are being briefed and provided with material to enable them to screen their own properties for the disease. Provisions are being made to enable Labtests to rapidly process samples to test for Psa. I am closely in touch with developments and will be in the Bay of Plenty this evening and will be meeting with industry representatives and growers tomorrow. 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has informed our relevant trading partners including Australia the United States and China. We will work to minimise the risk of any trade restrictions by providing regular information and updates. 
At this stage we do not know how the disease arrived in New Zealand. It is possible that it has been here for some time. Psa is spread by pollen heavy rainfall strong winds animals and humans. The disease appears to attack only under certain environmental conditions. It carries no human or animal health risk and does not affect plants other than kiwifruit vines. Kiwifruit remain safe to eat. 
This is a time for a considered and responsible approach and I am encouraged that all primary sector stakeholders are supporting the kiwifruit industry and the Government as we work out exactly what we are dealing with. I reiterate that biosecurity is paramount to a healthy and successful primary sector. Three-quarters of a billion dollars are spent annually on biosecurity in New Zealand and contrary to some claims the Government has not cut funding for biosecurity—in fact spending on biosecurity increased in Budget 2010. Our commitment to providing the most robust biosecurity system possible is unfailing. The Government and officials are treating this matter very seriously. 
I reassure members that the best possible people are working night and day to manage this threat to a crucial primary industry. The best response to this emergency will be achieved by a collaborative approach from all New Zealanders with a genuine interest in protecting New Zealand’s biosecurity.
Tremain Chris: Points of Order — Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—Split-party Votes 
Tremain Chris: Points of Order — Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—Split-party Votes 
[Volume:668;Page:15136] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to a point of order that was raised earlier in the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. It was with regard to Standing Order 139(2) about split-party votes. The Labour Party cast a split vote and immediately after the vote the Labour Party was required to deliver to the Clerk at the Table a list showing the names of the members who voted in the various categories. It has been another hour since that occurred and I want to make sure that the list has been tabled. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am informed that those names are with the Clerk.
Points of Order — Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—Split-party Votes 
Points of Order — Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—Split-party Votes 
[Volume:668;Page:15136] 
Points of Order 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—Split-party Votes 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to a point of order that was raised earlier in the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. It was with regard to Standing Order 139(2) about split-party votes. The Labour Party cast a split vote and immediately after the vote the Labour Party was required to deliver to the Clerk at the Table a list showing the names of the members who voted in the various categories. It has been another hour since that occurred and I want to make sure that the list has been tabled. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am informed that those names are with the Clerk.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Justice and Electoral Committee” be omitted.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to.
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14051] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 9 December 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I put the Minister’s motion there is an amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins to omit all the words after “Committee”.
Bridges Simon: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14045] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I look forward to the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee so that we can really dig into the detail of it. I can tell from my brief perusal of it that it is a practical bill and one that will make a difference in this area. Obviously Minister Williamson has done a lot of work on it to date. In my brief perusal of the bill I can see that it makes clear that we can have the best systems in the world but if one State agency is not talking to the other one so that one hand does not know what the other hand is up to it is a complete waste of time. This bill does something about that. 
This Government has invested $70 million in new systems and in border management. That is a lot of money and it is money well spent I might add. This is a very very important area in crime fighting—in all manner of crimes. We are talking about the importation of potentially very dangerous biosecurity risks and of drugs and the like. We know that in the past our borders have been a weak link. There was $70 million well spent but my point is that even with all that money being spent on the best systems in the world it is pointless if the agencies are not working together. This bill fine-tunes and puts in place the processes and the right results so that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Customs Service are working together are on the same page and are using the systems appropriately in a collaborative manner. 
As I said I look forward to this bill coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I look forward to getting into the detail. We will all work together on what I am sure is a non-contentious bill and on making the customs area work better for all New Zealanders.
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14022] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Katene Sharples Turia); Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Harawira). 
Bill read a first time.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13978] 
7. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What is the burden of proof under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in relation to applications for customary interests and what type of evidence would the Crown be required to produce to prove that a customary interest had been extinguished? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Under clause 105 an applicant group is required to prove it is entitled to the customary interest that is the subject of the application. It would have to show for example exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption and that the area in question was held in accordance with tikanga. If the Crown wants to assert that customary title does not exist then it will have the burden of showing that it has been extinguished. This sharing of the burden of proof is modelled on comments of the Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa case. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What assistance will be available to claimant groups to submit applications for recognition of a protected customary right a customary marine title or both? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Under the current Foreshore and Seabed Act the previous Government provided funding for resourcing and historical research in the context of negotiations. I imagine that that kind of thing will continue. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What support is he aware of for the intention of this bill to recognise “the intrinsic inherited rights of whanau hapu and iwi derived in accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The inherited rights of whanau hapu and iwi derived in accordance with tikanga are recognised by the status of mana tuku iho. This is an acknowledgment that iwi and hapu have a traditional role in caring for the common marine and coastal area in their rohe. This award has some similarities with the recognition awards provided for in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13978] 
6. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What reports has he received on responses to the Canterbury earthquake particularly with respect to the region’s flood and waste management systems? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am advised that the flood protection works in the lower Waimakariri area suffered from liquefaction involving lateral spreading to approximately 1.5 kilometres of the stopbanks mainly on the Kaiapoi side of the river but also in the Stewarts Gully area. Environment Canterbury has been working to re-establish this protection as quickly as possible and has already restored it to a 1-in-15-year level of flood protection. Work costing nearly $3 million will be completed over the next month to secure a 1-in-50-year level of flood protection. It will take 12 months to do the full set of work providing Christchurch and the people of Canterbury with a 1-in-200-year level of protection by this time next year. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What steps has the Government taken to assist in the earthquake clean-up so as to minimise the cost for householders and business? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Canterbury transfer stations and landfills have reported an eightfold increase in volumes with 40000 tonnes of food alone having to be disposed of. On top of this there will be tens of thousands of tonnes of other waste. The Government has stepped in to minimise the cost by exempting this waste from the Waste Minimisation Act levy of $10 per tonne. This step will save Cantabrians several million dollars. The purpose of the waste levy is to encourage recycling and waste minimisation during the normal course of business. An earthquake of this scale is a very exceptional event and there will be no impact on the Government’s waste minimisation programme and recycling work as the estimates do not include the sort of extra waste that comes from such a disaster.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13977] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for the Environment. What reports has he received on responses to the Canterbury earthquake particularly with respect to the region’s flood and waste management systems? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Nicky Wagner. The Labour front bench will cease carrying on interjections about the last question. It is discourteous to this House. I called Nicky Wagner. The last question has been dealt with; it may not have been dealt with terribly well but I am not going to pass any judgment on either the questions or the answers. I have now called Nicky Wagner and the House will show her some courtesy. I ask Nicky Wagner to repeat her question.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13976] 
4. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree that “tikanga” as it is described—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. The House will come back to order. That was totally unnecessary. I remind members that when a member has made a personal explanation that is it as far as this House is concerned. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does he agree that “tikanga” as it is described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will differ in meaning from iwi to iwi and hapu to hapu? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I think it is probably more accurate to say it “could” differ—not always but often. 
David Garrett 
: How does the Government define “tikanga” and where that definition differs from that used by those applying for customary title just who will determine what “tikanga” means? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: “Tikanga” is defined in clause 7 of the bill to mean “Maori customary values and practices”. As to how it will be proved and tested that will be for the judge who deals with the matter in the High Court. 
David Garrett 
: Who will determine whether iwi have acted in accordance with tikanga since 1840 as required by the bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If the matter goes to court a judge will determine that. There are some procedures set out in the bill. If there is a particular matter that the judge feels he or she needs particular assistance on either it can be referred to the Maori Land Court for a determination as happens now from time to time or the assistance of a pukenga can be engaged.
Garrett David: Personal Explanations — Passport Fraud—Discharge Without Conviction 
Garrett David: Personal Explanations — Passport Fraud—Discharge Without Conviction 
[Volume:666;Page:13971] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation regarding speculation about me in the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Twenty-six years ago while living a very different life I foolishly undertook what I naively saw as a harmless prank. It was one that was to later have repercussions both for me personally and for others who did not deserve to be hurt by my thoughtless actions. Using a method made known by the publication of the novel  
The Day of the Jackal 
 I obtained the birth certificate of a child born at around the time I was born but who had died in infancy. I used this birth certificate to obtain a passport in that child’s name. To this day I cannot explain the rationale behind my actions except to say I was simply curious to see whether such a thing could be done. I never used the passport for any purpose. It duly expired never having been used and I later destroyed it. 
Twenty-one years after I obtained the passport and many years after it had expired I was arrested along with a number of others following a police inquiry into passports that had been wrongfully obtained. This inquiry followed the obtaining by Israelis who were believed to be connected to that country’s intelligence service of a number of passports using the same method I had used. I was duly put before the court and admitted obtaining a passport by false pretences. After submissions by my lawyer I was discharged without conviction. The court accepted that the consequences of a conviction for this offence would have consequences out of all proportion to the offending. 
I was also granted permanent name suppression. My reluctance to answer media questions was due to my uncertainty regarding the extent of coverage of the suppression order. My preliminary legal advice is that for this reason neither I nor anyone else may comment further on this matter outside the House at this time. I am now seeking advice on whether the name suppression order can be varied or waived so that I may take media questions. 
I have made many mistakes in my life none more so than this. At the time when I committed this offence I gave no thought whatsoever to the effect it would have on others. Following my arrest I wrote letters of apology to the child’s relatives expressing my sincere remorse for the pain I had caused them. The regret I feel at the hurt that I unwittingly caused the family of the deceased child is something I carry with me today and will continue to carry for the rest of my life. I cannot wind back the clock but I sincerely wish that I could. Thank you.
Personal Explanations — Passport Fraud—Discharge Without Conviction 
Personal Explanations — Passport Fraud—Discharge Without Conviction 
[Volume:666;Page:13971] 
Personal Explanations 
Passport Fraud—Discharge Without Conviction 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation regarding speculation about me in the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Twenty-six years ago while living a very different life I foolishly undertook what I naively saw as a harmless prank. It was one that was to later have repercussions both for me personally and for others who did not deserve to be hurt by my thoughtless actions. Using a method made known by the publication of the novel  
The Day of the Jackal 
 I obtained the birth certificate of a child born at around the time I was born but who had died in infancy. I used this birth certificate to obtain a passport in that child’s name. To this day I cannot explain the rationale behind my actions except to say I was simply curious to see whether such a thing could be done. I never used the passport for any purpose. It duly expired never having been used and I later destroyed it. 
Twenty-one years after I obtained the passport and many years after it had expired I was arrested along with a number of others following a police inquiry into passports that had been wrongfully obtained. This inquiry followed the obtaining by Israelis who were believed to be connected to that country’s intelligence service of a number of passports using the same method I had used. I was duly put before the court and admitted obtaining a passport by false pretences. After submissions by my lawyer I was discharged without conviction. The court accepted that the consequences of a conviction for this offence would have consequences out of all proportion to the offending. 
I was also granted permanent name suppression. My reluctance to answer media questions was due to my uncertainty regarding the extent of coverage of the suppression order. My preliminary legal advice is that for this reason neither I nor anyone else may comment further on this matter outside the House at this time. I am now seeking advice on whether the name suppression order can be varied or waived so that I may take media questions. 
I have made many mistakes in my life none more so than this. At the time when I committed this offence I gave no thought whatsoever to the effect it would have on others. Following my arrest I wrote letters of apology to the child’s relatives expressing my sincere remorse for the pain I had caused them. The regret I feel at the hurt that I unwittingly caused the family of the deceased child is something I carry with me today and will continue to carry for the rest of my life. I cannot wind back the clock but I sincerely wish that I could. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Procedure 
Finlayson Christopher: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:666;Page:13971] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill to be treated as cognate bills and for the first reading debate on each bill to be taken together and at the conclusion of the debate for the questions on the first readings and the referral to a select committee to be put separately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Procedure 
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:666;Page:13971] 
Wednesday 15 September 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill 
Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill 
Procedure 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill to be treated as cognate bills and for the first reading debate on each bill to be taken together and at the conclusion of the debate for the questions on the first readings and the referral to a select committee to be put separately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14022] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committee 
 consider the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 25 February 2011 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13883] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Identity Information Confirmation Bill which at first glance is seemingly pretty dry legislation is going to the Government Administration Committee. But it is actually— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Do we get any other kind? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes. My colleague across the House queries whether we get any other kind. This bill is actually quite important because it will help ensure compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. 
These are important issues. Identity fraud is an emerging international concern for many agencies. This bill will enhance and make easier identity checks in line with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. The bill will help prevent the use of fake identities that somebody else has created. That is an incredibly important issue for us in New Zealand. 
Debate interrupted.
Guy Nathan: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13880] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution to conclude what I was saying when I last spoke on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. It is a very very important bill; it will reduce compliance costs. It will allow private and public sector agencies to verify a person’s identity. That has to be done with an individual’s consent. The Privacy Commissioner has looked very closely at this legislation and will continue to monitor it once it comes back from the Government Administration Committee and is passed into law. It is vitally important to get this bill moving through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.
Kedgley Sue: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13871] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party—like I believe every other party in this Chamber—is very pleased to be supporting the Child and Family Protection Bill but we agree with previous speakers that it does not go nearly far enough in protecting children who are victims of domestic violence. Su’a William Sio has really grounded this debate by telling us those horrific stories. We need to hear them to realise the horror of what we are dealing with and the need for this Parliament to do everything that it possibly can to help protect victims of domestic violence. 
We agree obviously that protection orders should continue to apply to children when they turn 17 but also we think that they should continue beyond when children turn 17 whether or not they reside with an applicant. Really it should be up to young people themselves to decide that a protection order is no longer required. We will strongly support amendments to extend the age limit—certainly to the age of 18—because surely the threshold should be in keeping with New Zealand’s responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which would be to set it at 18. 
We very much support the idea of extending the definition of violence to include psychological abuse. We have just heard stories of psychological abuse. It is absolutely critical that that provision goes through. We also agree that it is important to make the amendments that are proposed in this bill to the Adoption Act so that New Zealand can ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography. 
We will be supporting this bill and we will be supporting amendments to strengthen it. We agree that it is just a first step a baby step for Parliament in terms of extending protection to children who are the victims of domestic violence and that a great deal is still left for this Parliament to do.
Vote: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 106A be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3).
Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13848] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate that I make a couple of introductory remarks about Supplementary Order Paper 162 in my name which is on the Table this afternoon. In essence it changes the commencement date of the bill from 1 December 2010 to 1 April 2011 to allow time to implement the bill and time for the industry to prepare for these changes. It broadens the existing power to exempt crowd controllers from the requirement to hold a certificate of approval to include property guards and personal guards. It allows an exemption to be made for the purpose of a major event or associated event if the Minister is satisfied that the public interest in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of security personnel at the event outweighs the benefits of those people being regulated. That is in new clause 13G. It also makes several technical amendments throughout Part 2 to provide for online applications and it amends the regulation-making powers relating to training to allow the flexibility to introduce training requirements during the 5-year term of a licence or certificate of approval. It changes the date by which new categories of security personnel crowd controllers and personal guards become subject to the regime from 1 June 2011 to a date to be set by Order in Council.
Vote: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13856] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 After hearing the contributions from members across the House this afternoon I think it is important that I make some comments. A few questions have been posed this afternoon. One of those questions was from Jacinda Ardern asking whether the removal of clause 66 from the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill meant that private investigators will have more power than the police. That is not the case. The police have specific powers as set out in the Policing Act 2008. Private investigators like any other licence holder or certificate holder have no more powers than the general public. I hope that the member can seek some reassurance from that. It is captured in clause 101. 
In terms of the code of conduct there were some questions around drafting and who will be consulted. It is my intention that the Privacy Commissioner the Law Commission and the key stakeholders will be consulted through that process. Of course once the Law Commission has done its big piece of work on privacy which could take 2 years to be frank then there is an opportunity for the code to be amended if it is necessary once that piece of work is done. We also need to be aware of the fact that the Privacy Act 1993 cannot be overridden in that process. 
There were also some comments on the discretion of licensing. The bill gives the authority some discretion to grant a licence or a certificate even if a disqualification ground applies. I think the important point is that the discretion is used in exceptional circumstances where evidence—and it would have to be strong evidence—is provided to the authority that a person’s background character or circumstances means that they are suitable for the role despite their conviction or disqualification criteria. 
There was also a comment which I thought was interesting concerning community patrols. If we think about community patrols as I understand it most of those people—I think all of them—are volunteers. Volunteers are not captured under this regime. If they operate in-house that is if they are not employed by a licence holder then they are not captured unless of course they are a crowd controller. The Supplementary Order Paper has been dropped on the Table so I look forward to hearing some comments from the Hon David Carter—Parker—about that.