edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Pillay Lynne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17639] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I too like the member Chester Borrows commend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House on its third reading. I will not spend much time speaking on it because it is very important that the bill gets passed. It is a good example of parties working together. I also want to commend the constructive submissions and the very prompt work from the union movement the employers organisations the Nurses Organisation and the midwives. It is a very constructive amendment and I am very very happy to commend it to the House. Thank you.
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17633] 
Questions to Ministers 
Marine Protection—Progress 
12. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What recent progress has the Government made for marine protection around the New Zealand coastline? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Good news: I am pleased to say that a new 854-hectare marine reserve off the Wellington south coast has been established. Today notice of the reserve was published in the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 and the protections of this no-take reserve will come into force in 28 days’ time. I would like to congratulate the applicants the Wellington branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Wellington South Coast Marine Reserve Coalition on their dedication to this project. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: With thanks to the Minister: how does this reserve add to the Government’s programme of work for marine protection around the country? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: This Government is committed to protecting examples of our unique marine ecosystems. Since 2000 we have added 17 new marine reserves. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How in the light of the embarrassing defeat that her department suffered through the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to decline to approve the huge marine reserve for Great Barrier Island does she consider it now prudent to develop a framework by which no-take marine reserves comprise only one part of a graduated plan to ensure the sustainability of the marine environment and that the process for deciding where to establish such marine reserves should be more transparent and ensure that the views of all stakeholders including recreational fishers are taken properly into account? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: We are certainly making progress on targets for marine protection. Within our territorial sea 7.6 percent of the marine area is protected by marine reserves and we are currently working to further increase that area through the marine protected areas mechanism which creates a network of protection in 14 coastal regions throughout New Zealand. I think the member will be pleased with the progress.
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Evacuation—Amberley Beach 
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Evacuation—Amberley Beach 
[Volume:648;Page:17632] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt question time. Mr Dunne raised previously with me an issue about whether there was an evacuation due at Kaiapoi. The best update I have is that the answer is no but an evacuation has just begun at Amberley Beach and two emergency centres have been established for roughly 160 residents if they require them. I will bring further information if there is anything further before 6 o’clock. 
Question time resumed.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17633] 
12. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What recent progress has the Government made for marine protection around the New Zealand coastline? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Good news: I am pleased to say that a new 854-hectare marine reserve off the Wellington south coast has been established. Today notice of the reserve was published in the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 and the protections of this no-take reserve will come into force in 28 days’ time. I would like to congratulate the applicants the Wellington branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Wellington South Coast Marine Reserve Coalition on their dedication to this project. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: With thanks to the Minister: how does this reserve add to the Government’s programme of work for marine protection around the country? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: This Government is committed to protecting examples of our unique marine ecosystems. Since 2000 we have added 17 new marine reserves. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How in the light of the embarrassing defeat that her department suffered through the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to decline to approve the huge marine reserve for Great Barrier Island does she consider it now prudent to develop a framework by which no-take marine reserves comprise only one part of a graduated plan to ensure the sustainability of the marine environment and that the process for deciding where to establish such marine reserves should be more transparent and ensure that the views of all stakeholders including recreational fishers are taken properly into account? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: We are certainly making progress on targets for marine protection. Within our territorial sea 7.6 percent of the marine area is protected by marine reserves and we are currently working to further increase that area through the marine protected areas mechanism which creates a network of protection in 14 coastal regions throughout New Zealand. I think the member will be pleased with the progress.
Ministerial Statements — Evacuation—Amberley Beach 
Ministerial Statements — Evacuation—Amberley Beach 
[Volume:648;Page:17632] 
Ministerial Statements 
Evacuation—Amberley Beach 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt question time. Mr Dunne raised previously with me an issue about whether there was an evacuation due at Kaiapoi. The best update I have is that the answer is no but an evacuation has just begun at Amberley Beach and two emergency centres have been established for roughly 160 residents if they require them. I will bring further information if there is anything further before 6 o’clock. 
Question time resumed.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17630] 
10.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received on plans for construction of renewable energy projects? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government has set a clear direction for 90 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. Industry is responding with new generation projects due to come on stream over the next 4 years totalling 1400 megawatts worth between $3.5 billion and $4 billion. More than half of that is baseload geothermal generation and nearly all of it is renewable. Industry and New Zealand generally is right behind this. The only group opposing it is National. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he seen any reports on preferences for fossil fuel rather than renewable energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen reports that a number of groups in the Rodney district have asked to meet a local MP to discuss their concerns about a large fossil fuel plant in their area. According to the residents that MP has repeatedly refused to meet saying that his electoral diary is “fully booked until after the election”. Mr John Key found time to meet the Waikato lobbyists but he will not front up to the residents in his own electorate who are opposed to more fossil-fuelled electricity. New Zealanders overwhelmingly support clean green renewable energy but National opposes the emissions trading scheme biofuels and renewable preference legislation. As always actions speak louder than words and this latest refusal by Mr Key to meet people in his own electorate again shows that he along with Mr Brownlee and National has no real commitment to renewable electricity. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official Ministry of Energy data showing that 75 percent of new generation built under Labour has been thermal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the list of current generation projects of over 400 megawatts of renewable— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17628] 
8.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports if any has she received on the Working for Families package? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a transcript from yesterday’s Television One  
Breakfast  
programme where the Leader of the Opposition said he still regards the Working for Families package as “communism by stealth” but that his party will not change it. It is not surprising that his backbench are a little embarrassed that their leader not only confirms his view that Working for Families is a “communism by stealth” plot but also now supports it. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on the Working for Families package? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. In the same  
Breakfast 
 transcript Mr Key said that National’s tax policies would make changes to the Working for Families package. That statement follows similar contradictory statements made by Mr Key in an earlier television interview where he hinted at changing the Working for Families abatement threshold. He is either in denial about the no-change position because he has no new ideas or maybe he is just being consistently not up front.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his question. As he said I am following due process. I will act fairly to all parties in this matter.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know you are following due process but I wonder whether you can give the House any indication as to when you will be ruling on my complaint on a breach of privilege.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I will discuss that further. I suspect the Minister is himself engaged on those matters at the present time.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask in terms of Standing Order 348 whether the Leader of the House the Minister of Civil Defence or any spokesperson from the Government will be making a ministerial statement today on what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating weather situation in the South Island with threats of evacuation for certain parts of that area.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A bill like the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill is always a matter for a confidence vote. It is the most fundamental confidence vote that exists. I realise the member has been trying to spread a story that for some reason the Government has been postponing the vote. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. As the member is well aware and as was explained to the Business Committee the Government has had to progress the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) this week. It is necessary to amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act before tomorrow when it comes into force because a number of practitioners would have found themselves practising illegally—a matter that would not of course concern the member but would concern those practitioners.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday priority will be given to the completion of the Committee stage and the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. The third reading debate is a 3-hour debate and includes consideration of an Imprest Supply Bill. The Government will also seek to progress the first readings of bills currently on the Order Paper probably also the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and possibly the Policing Bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House indicate whether the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill will be considered to be a confidence vote by the Government? Secondly can he further update us on the progress of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which is still sitting on the Order Paper?
Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Points of Order — Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Points of Order 
Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask in terms of Standing Order 348 whether the Leader of the House the Minister of Civil Defence or any spokesperson from the Government will be making a ministerial statement today on what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating weather situation in the South Island with threats of evacuation for certain parts of that area. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I will discuss that further. I suspect the Minister is himself engaged on those matters at the present time. 
Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know you are following due process but I wonder whether you can give the House any indication as to when you will be ruling on my complaint on a breach of privilege. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his question. As he said I am following due process. I will act fairly to all parties in this matter.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17613] 
Thursday 31 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday priority will be given to the completion of the Committee stage and the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. The third reading debate is a 3-hour debate and includes consideration of an Imprest Supply Bill. The Government will also seek to progress the first readings of bills currently on the Order Paper probably also the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and possibly the Policing Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House indicate whether the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill will be considered to be a confidence vote by the Government? Secondly can he further update us on the progress of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which is still sitting on the Order Paper? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A bill like the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill is always a matter for a confidence vote. It is the most fundamental confidence vote that exists. I realise the member has been trying to spread a story that for some reason the Government has been postponing the vote. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. As the member is well aware and as was explained to the Business Committee the Government has had to progress the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) this week. It is necessary to amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act before tomorrow when it comes into force because a number of practitioners would have found themselves practising illegally—a matter that would not of course concern the member but would concern those practitioners.
Barker Rick: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17528] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Primary Production Committee 
 that the committee report to the House on or before 25 August 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during an 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Carter David: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17527] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will be brief with my contribution so this legislation can be voted on before the House rises. I commend the speech just given by the Hon Tariana Turia who gave a very very good rendition of the history of recent fisheries legislation and explained some of the issues the industry faces particularly with the attitude of the current Minister. I say at the outset that the 1996 Fisheries Act has overall been very very successful legislation and it is admired by many countries throughout the world with fishing industries. 
There was a court decision in February of this year by Justice Miller regarding the way that the total allowable catch is to be established. The decision suggested that before any decision is made on total allowable catch the biomass must be accurately known so that the maximum sustainable yield can be taken into the Minister’s consideration. This is more prescriptive than what was originally intended in the 1996 Act and therefore this particular legislation the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) seeks to clarify the wording of section 13 and in fact to clarify it to such an extent that the way it is interpreted is the way that it has been interpreted for the 629 species that have already been moved into the quota management system. 
I take this opportunity to congratulate the industry on its pragmatic and cooperative response to this issue. I understand that it has worked very closely with the officials of the ministry to make sure that a bill has now been presented into Parliament and has wide-spread support at this stage from most major industry players. What we now need to do is make sure that we progress this legislation through the select committee as quickly as possible with an intention to return it to Parliament before it rises for the election so that there will not be ongoing challenges to the establishment of total allowable catch for the next fishing season which commences on 1 October 2008. I commend this bill to the House and I will certainly give it my best at the select committee over the next few weeks. 
Bill read a first time.
Hobbs Marian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17519] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I will now put the final question on the bill. For the information of members I note that the question will be that clauses 1 to 9 as amended stand part even though a new clause 10 has been agreed to. That new clause is regarded as an amendment. 
Clauses 1 to 9 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17514] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate being able to speak on this matter immediately and I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King. I appreciate the amendment that has been put forward in her name. I expressed some concern when the bill was introduced. We always seem to be debating this bill rather late at night but we are getting there. I believe that the Minister’s amendment will take care of the issue raised by the unions and the business association involved. New Zealand First will be supporting it. 
As we are looking at the entire bill at this stage I draw to your attention Madam Chairperson that we now have an amendment to add new clause 10. We do not just have clauses 1 to 9; we now have an amendment to add new clause 10. I will move now—because we are looking at the bill as a whole—that we accept new clause 10. I will not be proceeding with the amendments to clause 6 in my name but only with the amendment to add new clause 10 which the House as a whole has given leave to be considered by this Committee. A clause on its own is otherwise not within the scope of the bill; hence the reason for my motion earlier on. So New Zealand First supports this matter and looks forward to its being completed as soon as possible.
King Annette: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
King Annette: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17514] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The purpose of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) is to amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to allow unions including health professional organisations and employer organisations to continue their longstanding practice of using in-house lawyers to provide legal services to their members. 
The bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 17 June 2008. The committee heard the submissions on 26 June and tabled its report on 7 July. The bill completed its second reading on 24 July. It was during the second reading debate that the National Party and New Zealand First raised concern about the scope of the bill and that it may well be too wide. Since those issues were raised in the second reading considerable negotiations have taken place between parties in this House to find a suitable amendment to the bill to make it within the scope of what this House intended. So tonight we have before us Supplementary Order Paper 216 in my name along with Dail Jones’ amendment which was the subject of the instruction to the Committee. The Supplementary Order Paper in my name addresses the concerns raised by other parties in this House and amends the bill to clarify that lawyers will continue to be guilty of misconduct if they provide legal advice to members on matters that are not relevant to employer organisations or a union.
Hughes Darren: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17514] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for this bill to be considered as one question while we are in the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17513] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for it to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendment in my name to section 107(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to enable the New Zealand Law Society’s practice rules to bind incorporated law firms and former incorporated law firms as well as lawyers and former lawyers. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being no objection that is agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17505] 
DAVE HEREORA (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 There are three areas of particular interest that the Maori Affairs Committee examined in the estimates for Vote Maori Affairs. The first was an examination of whether there was priority surrounding the Government outcomes particularly in relation to families both young and old. We noted that this was aimed at the provision of health safety and security and opportunity. The Minister of Maori Affairs outlined the advantages: with the introduction of 20 hours’ free early childhood education a far better level of education results particularly in tertiary education; free health care for children under six; and Maori having a longer life expectancy—acknowledging the importance of the role of hapu and iwi surrounding those issues. We also noted that the Ministry of Maori Affairs screens providers to ensure resources are being targeted at the intended recipients. 
The second area was in relation to non-departmental spending. Of the 2008-09 appropriation which totalled $189.6 million 64 percent—or $120 million—is comprised of non-departmental appropriation. Of that spend a lot has been transferred from Te Puni Kokiri to the Maori Trustee in order to fund a Maori global agribusiness development project. We also noted that an additional $3 million is to be set aside for the Maori Trustee the Federation of Maori Authorities and Poutama Maori Business Trust to establish a Maori business development project. 
Finally the third area of interest was in relation to the Maori wardens. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Maori wardens particularly those working on a voluntary basis as they are doing a sterling job out there. We note too that an annual fund has been established to resource Maori wardens directly for locally-based initiatives that focus on improving outcomes for Maori youth and whanau. We now have more than 340 wardens who have received training in first aid defensive driving etc. and those qualifications are recognised nationally particularly in the areas of work that they need to be trained in. 
Overall the three areas that we thought were of particular interest are looking quite positive. Those were the areas that I really wanted to focus on this evening. Kia ora. 
Vote agreed to.
Bennett David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Bennett David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17499] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister laid down a challenge for me to name a Waikato roading project begun by a National Government that she has cut the ribbon on. I would like to draw her attention to the Long— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No Mr Bennett. That is a debating issue.
Foss Craig: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Foss Craig: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Volume:648;Page:17493] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement regarding allegations made against me during question time today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may proceed. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I thank you Mr Chairman and the Committee for permission. This afternoon during question time the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters made allegations that I had not fulfilled my obligations when providing my details for the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I wish to take this opportunity to set the record straight. The Foss Family Trust is the registered owner of those shares Mr Peters referred to the shares in Cynotech Holdings Ltd and has been the registered shareholder since at least April 2003. 
I seek leave to table a document from Link Market Services confirming that the shares referred to have been registered in the name of the Foss family trust for more than 5 years. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Swain Paul: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Swain Paul: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Volume:648;Page:17493] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I appreciate what the member has said but he may have jumped the gun a little bit. There had already been a discussion going on. I just want to make sure that the implication of the whips’ denying leave is not somehow associated with a threat to bring back the Speaker. The reality is that the matter had been resolved prior to the member rising and I think we can now proceed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that we can go backwards and forwards across the Chamber but members should be reminded that it comes off the debating time.
Williamson Maurice: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Williamson Maurice: Personal Explanations — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Volume:648;Page:17493] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise with you the events of the last 20 minutes or so where Craig Foss has been seeking leave. I can say that in my 21 years I have never seen a case where a personal accusation—not a political one not a party one but a particular personal accusation—is laid by a member in this House and the person who that accusation is made against gets no chance— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is not a point of order though. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think it is because if I am not allowed to make it here I am going to ask for the Speaker to be recalled. Mr Foss had some accusations made against him by a member. I am not sure whether the junior Government whip is aware of that occurring. Ron Mark was not but once he found out he withdrew his accusations. I am going to ask for the process to happen again—for Mr Foss to ask for leave. If he cannot get leave—because I can understand Labour wanting to put some conditions around this about it being of a personal nature and so on then I understand that but if that is not allowed then it breaches every principle of natural justice and any member of this House whatever party he or she comes from should have that right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Williamson.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17492] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just had some accusations thrown across the Chamber that I was spoken to by Mr Dail Jones and made to change my view. Can I make it clear to you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member be seated for a minute please. I just remind members that when a point of order is on the floor two things are important. The first is that it is succinct and to the point and the second is that there are no interjections whatsoever. They can be seen as intimidation and that can lead to a breach of privilege. 
RON MARK 
: I just say to you Mr Chairman that at the time when I objected I was not aware that the National Party had allowed the Rt Hon Mr Peters to make a personal explanation because I was not in the House when that occurred. Mr Tremain knows that which is why he is nodding. Having been advised that had happened I changed my stance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. It is not a matter of explaining things; it is just a matter of whether people object. There has been no objection from New Zealand First. There was objection elsewhere.
Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17491] 
Points of Order 
Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You may have missed the interplay that has just occurred but it probably did not go past your notice that Mr Borrows came across the Chamber in a very agitated manner as a result of my objecting to Mr Craig Foss making a personal explanation. Can I tell you Mr Chairperson that I have no objection to Mr Foss again seeking leave to make a personal explanation. My objection was raised against the background of my being denied the opportunity to make a personal explanation at which time I did tell Gerry Brownlee: “Never again.” Mr Chairman I just want the Committee to know and you to know that Mr Peters is quite happy for Mr Foss to make his personal explanation. I have just spoken to him so if Mr Foss seeks leave again there will be no objection from New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that Mr Mark. For members’ benefit can I just say that if people make approaches across the Chamber that can be seen as intimidation and it can lead elsewhere. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding allegations made against me in question time today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just had some accusations thrown across the Chamber that I was spoken to by Mr Dail Jones and made to change my view. Can I make it clear to you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member be seated for a minute please. I just remind members that when a point of order is on the floor two things are important. The first is that it is succinct and to the point and the second is that there are no interjections whatsoever. They can be seen as intimidation and that can lead to a breach of privilege. 
RON MARK 
: I just say to you Mr Chairman that at the time when I objected I was not aware that the National Party had allowed the Rt Hon Mr Peters to make a personal explanation because I was not in the House when that occurred. Mr Tremain knows that which is why he is nodding. Having been advised that had happened I changed my stance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. It is not a matter of explaining things; it is just a matter of whether people object. There has been no objection from New Zealand First. There was objection elsewhere.
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17491] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding allegations made against me in question time today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17491] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You may have missed the interplay that has just occurred but it probably did not go past your notice that Mr Borrows came across the Chamber in a very agitated manner as a result of my objecting to Mr Craig Foss making a personal explanation. Can I tell you Mr Chairperson that I have no objection to Mr Foss again seeking leave to make a personal explanation. My objection was raised against the background of my being denied the opportunity to make a personal explanation at which time I did tell Gerry Brownlee: “Never again.” Mr Chairman I just want the Committee to know and you to know that Mr Peters is quite happy for Mr Foss to make his personal explanation. I have just spoken to him so if Mr Foss seeks leave again there will be no objection from New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that Mr Mark. For members’ benefit can I just say that if people make approaches across the Chamber that can be seen as intimidation and it can lead elsewhere.
Robertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Robertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17490] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Orders 133 and 350. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17490] 
Points of Order 
Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement regarding allegations made about myself during question time today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Orders 133 and 350. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Personal Explanation 
[Volume:648;Page:17490] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement regarding allegations made about myself during question time today.
Choudhary Ashraf: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17475] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 We have now heard from two Opposition MPs and they have not even bothered to mention the biggest item in the Budget—I do not even know that they remember it. This item is the Fast Forward fund the biggest ticket in the Budget regarding farming in this country. It is a $22 billion industry and the Opposition spokesperson did not even bother to mention this item— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: They’re embarrassed. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: They are embarrassed because $700 million has gone into research and development and every industry every research institute all the academics and all the stakeholders have applauded this initiative by the Minister. They are very proud of what he has done. But the Opposition did not even bother to mention this item in the Budget. 
I must say that I am very proud of this Government. It has taken the initiative to put a large amount of money into research and development which will trigger a whole lot of funds from the private industry. Private industry and the Government sector will combine all their efforts together to set up those funds. Already the Government has set up New Zealand Fast Forward Fund Ltd which will manage these funds. It will be calling for applications for research and for different projects. Clearly this kind of funding is a blessing for the future of this country and for the future of our sheep and dairy farming. I have spoken to a lot of scientists around the country who are very proud that a Labour-led Government has taken this initiative to provide such an amount of funds for agriculture. I am delighted with that initiative. 
Similarly the initiative in relation to the drought that we had earlier this year involved a committee that was set up to make sure that help would be provided to any farmers who needed help anywhere in the country. 
In relation to the national animal identification and traceability initiative I am again very very pleased that this initiative which was started in 2006 has now come to fruition. It is important for our export industry when our meats get overseas that we are able to trace these products back to a particular farm industry and packing house. With those brief comments I commend Vote Agriculture and Forestry to the Committee.
Anderton Jim: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17474] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I will make an offer to the member Shane Ardern who has just resumed his seat. I will personally pay to him out of my own account the level of profit that he claims Timberlands has made if he will pay to me the deficit—if there is one—of Timberlands. He said it is a profitable outfit— 
Shane Ardern 
: Not now. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Oh I see. Now we get it. He is like his great leader: it is “almost certainly likely” that Timberlands did not make a profit! We cannot take that seriously so we will forget it. 
As for the trees that the National Government planted all over the countryside—which he now claims credit for—I say he should go and have a look at where it planted them. It planted them on the tops of mountains where no one could get to them. It planted them everywhere because there were tax incentives. When Labour became the Government and I became the Minister for Industry and Regional Development the first thing that people in the forestry industry said to me was that they would not invest in New Zealand any more unless the Government built roads into the forests that they had been incentivised to plant because otherwise they could not harvest them. The Government had to come up with $60 million in funding for roads in Northland and on the East Coast to get access to all the trees that had been planted because of National’s tax incentives. National incentivised through tax the planting of them but it had no plan to harvest them. All those trees would have rotted on the ground because there was no way of harvesting them. 
I had to go all around the world to talk to the international corporations that owned the trees. They said: “We’re out of there.” The National Government had incentivised everybody to plant trees those corporations had bought them and paid their rates and then they found that there were no roads. They said that they would now invest in the Philippines. Honestly people have short memories about that Government and what it did given all the stuff they claim credit for now. 
Crown Forestry Group manages forests. If Timberlands is transferred to Crown Forestry Group which is the intention it will manage it. If Timberlands is such a great outfit we will see all sorts of people lined up to buy it. But people should not hold their breath. Timberlands will be managed by Crown Forestry Group. It does a magnificent job of managing forests for people. It has been able to hand back through the Treaty settlement process to our tangata whenua forests that are in a pristine state that have been well cared for that have been well managed and that have made a profit for the Crown and for iwi where there have been lease arrangements. I would not knock Crown Forestry Group; it is one of the best institutions we have. 
So it is all in order. We now know that it is not likely that what the member said about profits will actually happen—if the member meant it; he might have said something else. I do not see anything else of substance in his speech that we need to deal with.
Hereora Dave: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17471] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make some remarks in relation to the comments made by the previous speaker. He was all gloom and doom. At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves: have the National members supported the negotiations and agreements that we have so far? My understanding is that no they have not supported them. If the member is talking about slowing the process down I tell him that is exactly why the process gets slowed down. 
I do think it is important to acknowledge the very fine work of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Michael Cullen in relation to the appropriation that is being sought for 2008-09. The Maori Affairs Committee heard that the Office of Treaty Settlements had a large volume of work to complete its negotiations and I think that is reflected in the recent settlements over the last 2 weeks with Te Arawa and with regard to the central North Island claims—huge settlements. The committee is in the process of ensuring that we hear the submissions on the bills relating to those settlements in a timely fashion. I also note that an allocation has been set aside in the appropriation to provide for an additional negotiating team to assist the Office of Treaty Settlements to get through these agreements and negotiations. 
I think that all in all there has been some very important progress in this area and finally I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Cullen in relation to those changes. Kia ora. 
Vote agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Mapua Site—Report on Contamination Remediation 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Mapua Site—Report on Contamination Remediation 
[Volume:648;Page:17462] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the investigation into remediation of the contaminated site at Mapua. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and the release of the report is a particular case of a recent occurrence that does involve ministerial responsibility. However there needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. Working through the report’s recommendations will take time. Other parliamentary opportunities are available to consider the report’s recommendations. The estimates debate is set down on today’s Order Paper. This debate will provide an opportunity to debate any policy initiatives arising from the report. The application is therefore declined.
Simich Clem: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17463] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached the question will be put that the vote stand part. If it is the wish of the Committee I will put the question on groups of votes by Minister until a vote is reached that members seek to debate. A separate question on this vote will then be proposed from the Chair. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8 hours of debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate; I understand that all votes are available and they will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. Copies of the order of votes to be considered are available at the Table.