edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15297] 
5. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: How is the Government responding to the identification of the Psa disease in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Since  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv. 
 Actinidiae  
(Psa) was identified in New Zealand 11 days ago a major biosecurity operation has swung into action. The response team of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was on the ground within hours of notification. Since then a major round-the-clock programme of movement controls laboratory testing spraying vine control and grower education has been in place. The ministry has also been communicating extensively with our offshore trading partners to ensure that market access remains open. The Government and industry have been working together extremely closely on this serious disease outbreak and to date we have seen a well-managed response implemented at speed. 
Todd McClay 
: What are the next steps in the Psa response? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Although urgent testing continues with some 500 hectares now confirmed as infected eradication—at least in the short term—is unlikely. The Government and industry are now focused on developing a programme of aggressive containment of Psa which involves restricting it to currently infected sites. I am meeting with industry tomorrow in an attempt to finalise that response. Aggressive containment will require investment from the Government. The kiwifruit industry will also have to make a similar commitment but we are both 100 percent focused on ensuring a prosperous and vibrant sector into the future. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will the Government response include reinstatement of the 54 front-line biosecurity jobs he cut in 2009—cuts that may have contributed to the disease breaching New Zealand’s borders? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No it will not. This Government has appropriated more money for biosecurity than the previous Government did and I am certain that the readjustments at the border associated with imported containers and used cars have nothing whatsoever to do with the possible incursion of Psa which is a disease that could have been here for many years. 
Todd McClay 
: What has been the feedback from the kiwifruit industry on the support provided by the Government to date? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Perhaps the most pleasing aspect of the last 11 days has been how the Government and industry have worked together in a collaborative way to address this very serious issue. Industry leaders from Zespri the New Zealand kiwifruit growers and various post-harvest operators have specifically thanked me for the timely expert and high-quality support provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. It is still early days in the response to this challenging disease but I am confident that the high-quality and professional leadership provided by both industry and the ministry leaves us well placed to tackle this disease.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were prepared to hear the honourable Leader of the House on that point of order. I wonder whether you could share your ruling on his point of order with the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid I failed to understand what the member’s point was.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I tend to agree with the member and I wonder whether in fact seeing that it was not a point of order the member could make it clear whether it was in fact a ministerial statement and whether in fact that leads to other comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. The Speaker judges when he will hear points of order or not; he chose on that occasion to hear what the Leader of the House had to say.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15295] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document compiled by the Parliamentary Library from OECD Statistics New Zealand and Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showing that the income gap between Australia and New Zealand has widened in Australia’s favour in the last 2 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Turei Metiria: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Turei Metiria: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact the member of Parliament stood up and expressly said that what he was about to say was not a point of order yet you allowed him to continue. So indeed I did not interrupt a point of order because a point of order was not sought.
Turei Metiria: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Turei Metiria: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to call on the Speaker to establish an independent body to review and determine MPs’ expenses and allowances. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not strictly perhaps a point of order. I ask your indulgence to simply explain that declining leave to move the motion simply recognises that all party leaders have so far expressed confidence in your ability to move this issue forward— 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and I think that is where it should most appropriately be left. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have been aware that a point of order was being heard and she cannot interrupt that.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the results of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 57 and Noes 62. The correct result is Ayes 56 and Noes 62. The record will be corrected.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Agriculture KwaZulu-Natal Legislature 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Agriculture KwaZulu-Natal Legislature 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture from the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature of South Africa led by the Hon Richard Themba Mthembu is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15347] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill the interrupted second reading and Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) the second reading and Committee stage of the Holidays Amendment Bill the passing through their remaining stages of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Child and Family Protection Bill and any bills into which they may be divided the Committee stage of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill and the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill and the second reading of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill.  
That is an ambitious list which the Opposition is saying could take us right through until some time on Sunday afternoon. In fact Parliament cannot sit on a Sunday afternoon. I have given the House a previous assurance that we will be lifting at 6 o’clock on Thursday. The intention to take urgency this week was notified some months ago. Although the content of the urgency motion has a number of bills that are controversial it is largely driven out of the fact that we have just 11 House days left until the end of the year. If we take today as being the day for the rest of the week it gives us about 9 House days until the end of the year. There is a degree of urgency for the Government in wanting to progress bills. Some of these are widely supported; others will be more controversial. Of course Parliament will have the time to give those bills the scrutiny required. But of course we will have no repetition at all in those Committee stages because of the new commitment we have from the Opposition parties. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15348] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 17 November and Thursday 18 November 2010 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Ministerial Resignation 
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Ministerial Resignation 
[Volume:668;Page:15305] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Pansy Wong—Ministerial Resignation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister for Ethnic Affairs and the Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Pansy Wong. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations will lead to an urgent debate. In this case I am not persuaded to accept the application. Although there is ministerial responsibility for the acceptance of a resignation of a Minister the administrative responsibility in this case lies with the Speaker. The issues that led to Mrs Wong’s resignation are not ones to which ministerial responsibility attaches. Parliamentary travel entitlements are funded through Vote Parliamentary Service and administered by the Parliamentary Service. It is the Speaker who must answer for them. Furthermore there is a Parliamentary Service investigation under way. This needs to run its course. To justify an urgent debate there must be an element of urgency to require a matter to be debated immediately; otherwise the scope for urgent debates would be enormous. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. It is not a vehicle for addressing matters that are the responsibility of the Speaker. The application is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
Points of Order — Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Points of Order 
Establishment of Body to Review Expenses and Allowances of MPs—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to call on the Speaker to establish an independent body to review and determine MPs’ expenses and allowances. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not strictly perhaps a point of order. I ask your indulgence to simply explain that declining leave to move the motion simply recognises that all party leaders have so far expressed confidence in your ability to move this issue forward— 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and I think that is where it should most appropriately be left. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have been aware that a point of order was being heard and she cannot interrupt that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact the member of Parliament stood up and expressly said that what he was about to say was not a point of order yet you allowed him to continue. So indeed I did not interrupt a point of order because a point of order was not sought. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I tend to agree with the member and I wonder whether in fact seeing that it was not a point of order the member could make it clear whether it was in fact a ministerial statement and whether in fact that leads to other comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. The Speaker judges when he will hear points of order or not; he chose on that occasion to hear what the Leader of the House had to say. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were prepared to hear the honourable Leader of the House on that point of order. I wonder whether you could share your ruling on his point of order with the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid I failed to understand what the member’s point was.
Voting — Correction—Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Voting 
Correction—Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the results of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 57 and Noes 62. The correct result is Ayes 56 and Noes 62. The record will be corrected.
Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Agriculture KwaZulu-Natal Legislature 
Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Agriculture KwaZulu-Natal Legislature 
[Volume:668;Page:15289] 
Tuesday 16 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Agriculture KwaZulu-Natal Legislature 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture from the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature of South Africa led by the Hon Richard Themba Mthembu is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15328] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15361] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Harawira Hone: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15371] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The Maori Purposes Bill is certainly very important to the affected parties but it is essentially technical in nature. I sincerely hope that it attracts the support of the whole House as it certainly enjoys the support of all of the members of the Maori Party. Thank you very much.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15290] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Finance and reads— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hekia is behind him! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The member may know I am behind— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I request the House to please take a deep breath and to settle down a little. There is no need for this.
Ardern Jacinda: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15149] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I think that was a great example from John Hayes of filibustering. If not I have to say I did not otherwise feel the need to know about the Monsoon Munchers. 
Debate interrupted.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15126] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 In view of the clarification that you have just made Mr Assistant Speaker I seek the leave of the House for the Minister to table his speaking notes from the first reading speech so that we might reflect upon whether the substance was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that that is exactly the same matter that the member raised— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member shakes his head but in substance he asked for the information to be tabled. I said it is in the member’s speech. The member is traversing exactly the same ground again. The member can shake his head but that is my impression and I say to him that my impression is the only one that counts on this.
Nash Stuart: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Nash Stuart: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15125] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this is a little bit retrospective but I ask whether the Minister who put the question to the House on this bill could please clarify the bill he mentioned. I do not think he spoke on the correct bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have already ruled on that matter. I ruled on the matter when the Hon David Cunliffe raised it. The member is relitigating a point I have already ruled on. I say to the member in generosity of spirit that I take a dim view of that. Once a matter has been ruled on it is final; that is the end of it. But having put that one down there is something else that has been brought to my attention by the Clerk. The Minister in moving the first reading of the bill appears to have made an error in the title of the bill in relation to that on the Order Paper. He did not correctly state the title of the bill as the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Before I put the question on the bill I ask the Minister to confirm that we have the exact title. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: It is as printed on the Order Paper. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is correct. It is just a minor technical detail and it is nothing of substance.
Dean Jacqui: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15142] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I stand in the third reading of the Governor-General Bill. This bill is timely legislation and it is important for New Zealand as the Governor-General plays a very important role in New Zealand’s constitution. The bill implements the recommendation in the Law Commission’s report 112 which reviewed the Civil List Act subject to minor changes of a technical nature that the Government Administration Committee made. The bill repeals and replaces Part 1 of the Civil List Act 1979 with updated financial arrangements concerning the allowances salary taxation and travelling expenses of the Governor-General and the administrator of the Government. 
As noted by David Parker the chair of the Government Administration Committee the committee received submissions on this bill and they were interesting and thought-provoking—for example some submitters believed that a proper process should be defined for the dismissal of a Governor-General; some submitters wanted to set a fixed term for which Governors-General are appointed suggesting that a maximum of 5 years or a term decided by Parliament would be appropriate; and some submitters wanted the Governor-General to become the head of State of New Zealand. The committee determined that although those submissions were interesting and perhaps could be picked up at another time they were outside the scope of the bill. A couple of minor technical amendments were noted for which the committee did not feel it was worth reprinting the bill but they are noted in the commentary. 
I will make just a few comments to finish off my contribution on this bill. As the Sovereign’s representative in New Zealand the Governor-General helps maintain the legitimacy and continuity of Government. The Governor-General has a very important role in New Zealand society and it is a position that is well regarded. The office of the Governor-General makes a symbolic link between the community and the State and the Governor-General also represents the New Zealand public in a non-partisan way on important public occasions. As those of us who are privileged to have seats in this House will know the current Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand fulfils his duty with a good deal of grace. 
New Zealand Governors-General always support many community organisations. That is also noted and important. It is vital for us in New Zealand that the office of the Governor-General is properly supported in those important roles. With those remarks I commend the bill to the House.
Heatley Phil: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15140] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I move  
That the Governor-General Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill repeals and replaces Part 1 of the Civil List Act 1979 with new financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme including removing the tax exemption for the Governor-General’s salary. Although the bill will simplify the financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and for his or her programme and will modernise the antiquated drafting from the part on the Governor-General in the Civil List Act it will not affect the constitutional position of the Governor-General in any way. 
The Law Commission considered a number of options on how the legislation supporting the Governor-General should be framed. It ultimately concluded that there is symbolic importance in setting out the provisions relating to the Governor-General in separate legislation. The Governor-General Act will enhance the apolitical role of the Governor-General in our constitutional arrangements and align the New Zealand statutory arrangements with those in Australia and Canada. 
The key reforms of the bill relate to the changes to how the office of the Governor-General is funded. The bill will consolidate all funding for the Governor-General’s programme with a single permanent appropriation leaving annual appropriations to account for Government House’s operational budget only. The Governor-General’s international travel will be provided for under a separate appropriation. These arrangements will be much simpler and easier to administer than the current system under the Civil List Act. Although permanent appropriations remove certain payments from annual parliamentary approval separating out the existing permanent appropriations into distinct categories provides additional transparency in so far as each appropriation will show up as a different line item in both the estimates and the annual reports from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 
The Governor-General’s salary and allowance are exempt presently from income tax under the Income Tax Act 2007. The salary is calculated on this basis. This is a historical anomaly which the bill rectifies. The bill contains savings and validations clauses to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Civil List Act and any determinations of the Remuneration Authority or Orders in Council made under the Act continue to apply to the incumbent Governor-General and previous Governors-General and their spouses. Only the annuities provisions which remove outdated restrictions on the availability of annuities already discussed will apply to the incumbent Governor-General and his spouse. I thank the Law Commission and the Government Administration Committee for their work on this issue.
Hayes John: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15113] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson Grant: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15140] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the speech made by the Hon Peter Dunne on 23 July 2008 on the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill which is the same speech that Jonathan Coleman gave at the start of this first reading. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I cannot accept that because it is already in  
Hansard 
. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the member has made his point. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15123] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt proceedings. The Opposition’s understanding is that we are currently debating the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Without being able to be conclusive about this it appears that the Minister has been addressing a different bill. Would it be possible to request the Minister to table his notes so we can ascertain— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. A point of order is about the procedure of the House. What the Minister says in introducing the bill is what the Minister says and that is on the record.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15116] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 38; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 6 agreed to.
Adams Amy: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15115] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15110] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 6 I just reflect that we are now through the major provisions of the bill and I come now to the part that deals with regulations the serving of documents and those sorts of things. It is interesting is it not that even this late in the passage of this bill which will enable the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup 2011 the Labour Opposition members are all at sea. They neither support it nor not support it; they are not quite sure how they really feel about this Rugby World Cup event that we are having next year. I think that is a shame because the rest of the New Zealand community is gearing up for this Rugby World Cup— 
Craig Foss 
: They must have had an interesting caucus. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I would say they always have an interesting caucus. Some do not know how they feel about this event because they have abstained from voting and I think that that is a shame. I think that is a shame for all of the New Zealanders all around New Zealand who are gearing up to make this the world-beating event that it should be. The provisions of this bill which will make those processes smoother and easier are relatively non-controversial and simple but cannot be supported by the Labour members in this House. I think that is a shame and I say that for the record of the House. 
Part 6 deals with regulations and is very much a procedural part. It deals with the method of calculating deposits for people who wish to make applications to the authority that determines liquor licences and other provisions. It covers the recovery of costs the charging of costs and the methods by which documents can be served. So it is very much getting down to the nuts and bolts of things. 
I want to finish my short contribution by reflecting that for most of us in this Parliament this bill reminds us of the exciting opportunity we have in New Zealand. The National Government supports rugby. It supports all of New Zealand getting behind the Rugby World Cup. All the members of the National Government are vitally interested and do hope that the Rugby World Cup will be the marvellous event it promises to be. I am just sorry that that desire is not shared by the Opposition.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15110] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 23 (Ardern Beaumont Chadwick Cunliffe Curran Davis Fenton Goff Hawkins Hipkins Hodgson Horomia Hughes Huo King Lees-Galloway Mackey Mallard Nash Parker Prasad Robertson G Twyford); ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand Labour 11 (Chauvel Choudhary Dalziel Dyson Mahuta O’Connor Ririnui Robertson R Sio Shearer Street); Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 4 
New Zealand Labour 4 (Burns Cosgrove Moroney Sepuloni). 
Part 5 agreed to.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15110] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15110] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 23 (Ardern Beaumont Chadwick Cunliffe Curran Davis Fenton Goff Hawkins Hipkins Hodgson Horomia Hughes Huo King Lees-Galloway Mackey Mallard Nash Parker Prasad Robertson G Twyford); ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand Labour 11 (Chauvel Choudhary Dalziel Dyson Mahuta O’Connor Ririnui Robertson R Sio Shearer Street); Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 4 
New Zealand Labour 4 (Burns Cosgrove Moroney Sepuloni). 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to add the following subparagraph to subclause (1)(a): 
(iii)must display details of various transportation options available nearby the premises for patrons to encourage them to choose safe transportation.
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15109] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Quinn Paul: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Quinn Paul: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15096] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Acting Attorney-General in the decision that she made to settle this matter with former Justice Wilson because it was in the interests of all parties that this matter be brought to an expeditious close. 
To that extent I pick up on a comment that the mover of the debate the Hon David Parker alluded to. He said that if this matter showed one thing quite publicly it was the closeness the intertwining of senior counsel and the judiciary in New Zealand. This was certainly one of the reasons why I like the Acting Attorney-General was not in favour of getting rid of the Privy Council as the last court of appeal for this country. This case has clearly demonstrated the simple fact that all senior counsel in this country—certainly all of the good ones—and most of the judges are on friendly terms. 
I also like Kennedy Graham record my sadness about what this has done to Bill Wilson’s career. I know Bill; he is not a friend but none the less I can share and enjoy an ale with him from time to time. It is sad because as Kennedy Graham said Bill Wilson has an outstanding record before the Bar. I guess that is one of the reasons the previous Attorney-General elevated him first straight to the Court of Appeal and then 10 months later to the Supreme Court. 
The sadness in all of this is that for Bill Wilson notwithstanding—as the previous speaker Trevor Mallard alluded to—his outstanding mind all of his dealings were done in a traditional way where a man’s word was his bond if you will. In this instance as I understand many of the facts this has led to his downfall. He relied on his traditions in the fact that he had previously in an informal sense made it known to the parties that he was in a business relationship with Galbraith but had not formalised it in the court records. So it is sad and the previous speaker alluded to other incidental matters that other people knew about these facts. It is sad. 
I also support the Acting Attorney-General in the fact that she reached a settlement. Members of the Opposition have questioned that settlement but it pales into insignificance compared with some of the settlements that occurred during their time in Government—and I start with John Hawkesby’s $6 million settlement with Television New Zealand and Peter Doone’s settlement when he was put on gardening leave and then paid off. How can members on that side of the House criticise an excellent settlement by the Acting Attorney-General? In terms of opportunity cost it saved the country hundreds of thousands of dollars—of that there is no question. I support the Minister in all of those actions. Thank you.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15093] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speakers that this has been a very worrying and difficult position for the Government and in fact all of us to find ourselves in. When the judiciary is challenged and does not appear to be meeting the standards we expect then all of us have failed to some extent. Serious constitutional issues are arising and although we would like to turn back the clock we cannot do that. We can do our best to right any wrongs that were done if they were ever done. 
In this case a judge has been found wanting. The judge has been dealt with in two manners. One is that he is no longer a sitting judge. The second is that the judge has been made some payments. They arose really as a matter of practicality; some of them were due to him and some of them were made probably because they were the most cost-effective way of finishing what is a sad and sorry affair. I think we all agree that there has been a suggestion of the possibility of bias in this case. That is what started our position. 
There are a variety of parties to this issue. One of them is the Government and one of them is the judiciary—and in fact Justice Wilson. But also there is the person who had the issue whom the wrong thing happened to. In my opinion we have done the best we could to deal with the problem that was before us and stop it happening again. We have not done the other thing to the best of my knowledge—maybe the Hon Mr Parker knows more about this matter than me. We have dealt with the person who may have been part of the problem but we have left the person who was wronged with the wrong still done. 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s been reheard by the Court of Appeal but they are awaiting judgment. 
HILARY CALVERT 
: Yes. So to me the important thing is to finish this sorry affair by making sure that the people who were wronged are put back in the best position they can be in the most appropriate way we can to give them their recourse. We should deal with people in the usual manner which in this case means making sure that financially—as we have done with the judge; we have done the appropriate thing financially—we deal with the victims in at least as sympathetic appropriate and effective a way as we have dealt with the judge.
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15117] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to respond that the proxies have been taken from Labour and will be provided to the Clerk in due course. We are just locating those in the handover between whips at this time. I am sure that the Government will be patient with us while we locate the relevant names but we have it in hand.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15085] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate the resignation of Justice Wilson. I have also received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate the decision of the Acting Attorney-General to approve a resignation package for former Justice Wilson. 
Justice Wilson’s resignation is a particular case of recent occurrence. It became effective from 5 November. The matter involves the administrative responsibility of the Government in respect of the court system and confidence in it. Given the significance of a decision to accept the resignation of a very senior judge in such circumstances I am persuaded that the matter does warrant the immediate attention of the House. 
However in debating the matter it is important that members have regard to the comity between Parliament and the courts. It is highly unconstitutional to reflect on or speak disrespectfully of the judiciary. The court system may be criticised but such criticism cannot extend to the court itself. Although there is no prohibition on referring to a judge members must not do so in a way that is critical or suggests a judge was unfair or unjust. The conduct of a former judge however is not so protected. 
The two applications are not identical but relate to the same matter. As the Hon David Parker lodged his application first I call upon the Hon David Parker to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Foss Craig: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15117] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Are we to expect those names forthwith? I notice that it has been 2 hours since the first split vote that I am aware of from the other side. That seems ample opportunity. What would be a normal time frame? When should we expect that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not know what an ample time frame would be. “Immediately” sounds like it will be pretty prompt. The Chair of the Committee cannot force people to do things. We have an assurance from the whips that the names will be produced and that the paperwork is being resolved. I expect that the whips for Labour will produce the paperwork very quickly. I have that assurance and I accept the whips’ assurance.
Foss Craig: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15114] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15085] 
12. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the roll-out of the police’s new digital radio network? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the Christchurch City area successfully cut over to the new digital radio network on 1 November. The cut-over of Christchurch City follows the first transfer from the ageing analog network that took place in the Wellington Police District last year. It means that two of our major cities now have secure radio networks that cannot be snooped on by criminals using scanners. Police are able to detain criminals who previously evaded arrest by obtaining an early warning of police attention. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What other areas will be upgraded to the digital radio network as part of the roll-out? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The digital radio network is scheduled to be rolled out in Auckland City next week followed by Counties-Manukau and Waitemata over the next few weeks. In the meantime North Canterbury and Selwyn will switch over later this month and mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury will do so in February next year. This will complete the roll-out of phase one of the programme and provide three of our major population centres with secure digital radio communication. It will ensure that police communications are more reliable officer safety is improved and the police are more effective in doing their job of keeping our community safe.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15080] 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What steps has the Government taken to address the importation of pharmaceutical products used to manufacture P? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I have recently returned from a very productive trip to China where I engaged in high-level meetings with senior members of China Customs and with the Chinese Minister of Customs Minister Sheng. During those talks I described to Minister Sheng the problem that New Zealand has with large volumes of pharmaceutical products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being smuggled out of China and into New Zealand. Minister Sheng showed genuine concern about the issue and as a result the two countries have now signed a statement of cooperation to tackle the issue. I personally told Mr Sheng about the damage and the danger that these precursors were causing and he has given a very strict directive to his 50000 customs officers to be extra vigilant on the matter and to begin a new period of cooperation. The agreement will see China and New Zealand customs share intelligence identify and develop opportunities to coordinate short-term targeting exercises in both China and New Zealand and increase the disruption of traffic of the drug and its precursor. 
Jonathan Young 
: What success have customs officers had in protecting our borders in the war on P? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well 2010 will be a challenging year given that in 2009 we set an all-time record for interception of the precursor. In fact over 1.2 tonnes of pseudoephedrine was intercepted at the border. However the good news is that this year to October we have intercepted 821 kilos. Also we have started making some quite important interceptions on the actual drug P not just the precursor. Recently some individuals were apprehended at Auckland Airport who held large quantities of the drug P inside their bodies. One Lithuanian individual had 1.4 kilograms of the drug inside his body. So far we have had very good progress but it will be a real stretch to see if by 31 December we can beat last year’s all-time record.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15080] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Customs—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. That matter has been dealt with and a member is asking a question from the back of the House. I expect the House—again on this occasion especially the Labour front bench—to display some courtesy.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15076] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Women’s Affairs and asks—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. Members have to be a little more reasonable. Question No. 5 has been dealt with. Members may not be happy with the answers but there is always another day to ask more questions. I have called Catherine Delahunty to ask her question and to keep interjecting is not fair.