edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5A be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 5A agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 5 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18507] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18527] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Environmental Protection Authority Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into six bills and the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill without amendment.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18527] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 15 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 in the name of Charles Chauvel to add new paragraph (f) to clause 12.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18498] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(a) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(a)ensures the protection of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources while having regard to their efficient effective and transparent management; and.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18498] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 in the name of Charles Chauvel to clause 11 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18498] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 in the name of Charles Chauvel to the heading to clause 7 and to clause 7 be agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18495] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Graham Kennedy: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18495] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to advise the Committee that in the last half an hour I have developed an amendment and it should be in front of colleagues now or very shortly. It reflects a similar concern as that articulated earlier by my colleague Charles Chauvel—picking up from various concerns that my colleague David Clendon and the Green Party have raised earlier in the Committee and during the first reading—that there is a fundamental illogic in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill here. It can be clarified or rectified with some fairly simple wording. If we look to the purpose in Part 1 and the objective in Part 2 it is in relation to clause 11 “Objective of EPA” that I offer the amendment. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to establish an Environmental Protection Authority”—that is environmental protection. When we look at the objective of the authority it is to carry out the purpose in every Act. The objective as has already been noted says nothing at all about protection. Clause 11 “Objective of EPA” states: “(1) The objective of the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that—(a) contributes to the efficient effective and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources;”. 
It makes no sense to establish a protection authority that does not explicitly contain in its objective the protection of the environment. My proposal in my amendment is the following: “The objective of the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that—(a) ensures the protection of NZ’s environment and natural and physical resources while having regard to their efficient effective and transparent management.” That wording keeps the intended thrust of the Government—that is the efficient effective and transparent management of resources—but it precedes that with the superior obligation that is implicit in the bill and in its stated purpose which is the protection of the environment. I repeat its objective: “(a) ensures the protection of NZ’s environment and natural and physical resources while having regard to their efficient effective and transparent management.” 
I submit that amendment to the Committee and with your indulgence Mr Chairperson I would like to raise a separate point but may I do that in a separate call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member finishing the call? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Yes. I am indicating that there is a separate point I would like to explore but I would prefer to do it in a separate call if that is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 2. The member may want to continue because I cannot guarantee the allocation of speaking spots. While the member has the call he might want to continue with it. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your advice but I will in fact leave it at that and give it a shot later.
Wagner Nicky: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18495] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18499] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I intend to take only a small call on Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. It is interesting because it speaks about one of the real kickers of the whole bill which is bringing staff together. There is a definite concentration on collegiate advantage and that will be really good. One of the points that interests me in the contributions from the other side of the Chamber so far is that the majority of people who have spoken on the bill to the best of my memory did not actually sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee during the hearings on this bill—for very good reasons I am sure as part of their internal party organisation. I honestly think that that has been reflected in the quality of the contributions they have made. Without wishing to be personal about it they are demonstrating a very narrow understanding and interpretation of the submissions received because they missed out on the accompanying discussion which really did broaden the whole platform. 
I am sorry that that is the case because the Minister for the Environment has responded very politely to each point that members have raised on the exclusive economic zone and the environmental purpose and status of the Environmental Protection Authority. We are hearing over and over again the same old arguments and that does not give sufficient credit to the capacity of the Opposition to join us in promoting this bill as a good thing for the environment. The bill has been through a very robust and thorough process and our environment is best served by us getting on and passing the law so that the authority can get on with the job on 1 July. I know that the structures that are being established in Part 3 will do that very very effectively. 
The Hon Ruth Dyson brought something contradictory into the debate the last time she was here. I note that she said in an earlier speech that the Minister had not kept me the chair of the select committee advised of his views of the bill that I should be hopping mad about that and that she would be if she were me. In response to that I say: “He did I’m not and she isn’t.”
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18478] 
12. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Why is the Government considering the proposed ferry terminal at Clifford Bay? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Preliminary advice shows that a new sea freight terminal at Clifford Bay could significantly reduce ferry crossing-times by half an hour and would further reduce the travel time to Christchurch by 50 minutes for road and 80 minutes for rail. This would have the effect of bringing our three largest cities closer together and therefore increasing productivity and helping economic growth particularly in the South Island. In addition the new terminal could provide a real long-term boost to Christchurch’s recovery and confidence. Ferry operators could also benefit by increasing their freight capacity over time and running an extra ferry crossing per day thereby improving their productivity further. 
Colin King 
: What are the next steps for progressing the project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly the Ministry of Transport is commissioning a study to further examine the project including national cost and benefit assumptions which will take 2 to 3 months to complete. Secondly using the results we will then be able to determine whether Clifford Bay could be successful and whether it would be a candidate for a public-private partnership for example. It is not the sort of facility that KiwiRail would have the resources to build on its own but it could provide a steady long-term revenue stream to infrastructure investors. Designing and building the terminal would take an estimated 3 to 5 years. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How does the Government’s ferry terminal consideration take account of the future of Picton and Blenheim likely to be gutted as a consequence of these changes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member may have been asleep at the time but yesterday Mark Baxter of Sounds Connection one of the tour operators in Picton said that without the ferries Picton could come into its own as a tourist destination and in his words “go from strength to strength”. He said: “The ferries going south could be I think in actual fact the making of the town.” Of course the ferries moving to Clifford Bay if it happened would also reduce the amount of heavy freight travelling through the Blenheim township.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18477] 
11. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: In what ways has the Government demonstrated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: 
 By doing what we have been doing since day one of this great Prime Minister’s administration. We have accelerated the settlement of Treaty grievances after 9 years of failure; we have reviewed and repealed the hated Foreshore and Seabed Act; we have restored the right of iwi to seek customary title in the courts; and we have supported the declaration through participation in international meetings. Indeed the United States has changed its position on the declaration. An official from Te Puni Kokiri is attending the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues this week and will also attend a meeting in Washington of United States Canadian Australian and New Zealand officials dealing with indigenous topics. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with article 19 in the declaration which affirms indigenous peoples’ rights to “free prior and informed consent”; if so why have New Zealand officials currently attending the UN session on sustainable development asked for the text “free prior and informed consent” to be deleted? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As to the first part of the question yes. I note that although the declaration certainly carries moral force it is not legally binding; it is an aspirational document. 
Hone Harawira 
: Can the Minister please tell the House how the Government calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Tuhoe and Te Whanau-a-Apanui for standing up for the rights guaranteed to them under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples demonstrates its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As to the issue of Tuhoe that matter is before the court. It would be singularly inappropriate to comment on that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree that in seeking to remove “free prior and informed consent” from the text on mining in the sustainable development session his officials have breached Cabinet’s support for the declaration and have breached the Treaty clauses in a number of pieces of legislation including the Crown Minerals Act; if so what is he doing about it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No it is a work in progress and we will see what happens at the end of the day. To ask for a clause by clause day-by-day analysis of the work our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials are doing at this most important conference would be inappropriate.
Ardern Shane: Arms (Military Style Semi-Automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Arms (Military Style Semi-Automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18547] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. I would like to follow on from the Minister of Justice and indicate that my knowledge on this issue is extensive just as his clearly is. 
I look forward to the submission process in the Law and Order Committee because clearly when we set out on a well-meaning path with new legislation there will always be some unintended consequences that the wisdom of the House tonight may not be able to filter out. I hope that those who participate in gun clubs and sporting activities using firearms and who understand the ramifications of the bill—particularly to do with military-style semi-automatic - type arms and the more powerful airguns today which have become a major feature in some crimes in recent times—will take part in that submission process. I myself have been surprised to learn of the power of some of those more modern guns. I look forward to that matter being debated in the select committee and await the submissions with great interest.  
It is also interesting to note that the bill is attempting to define a military-style or military firearm - type risk as opposed to the risk from a gun that might be used as a sporting gun. 
Debate interrupted.
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18527] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18515] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18476] 
10. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why is it not in the public interest to tell New Zealanders whether if he had travelled by car from Hamilton to Auckland as previously arranged he would have arrived in time for his “security related meetings” on 11 December 2009? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is my judgment that it is not in the public interest for me as Prime Minister to talk publicly about any of the details related to security-related meetings held on that date and from the best of my knowledge that was the custom of the previous Prime Minister as well. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that I am not seeking the subject of the meetings the number of meetings the venues of the meetings the attendees at the meetings or the duration of the meetings but rather I am seeking to know only whether if the kind helicopter pilot had not offered a lift direct to Auckland the Prime Minister would have got there on time? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said earlier it is my judgment that it is not in the public interest for me as Prime Minister to talk about security-related matters. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he stand by his statement that when the helicopter pilot asked him whether he wanted to go from Mount Pirongia to Hamilton or Mount Pirongia to Auckland “the pilot said to me it was about equal distance either way”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot remember whether the pilot said that but I can certainly assure him that the pilot offered to take me to Auckland. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why was the Vela brothers’ invoice that was generated on New Year’s Eve 2009 not approved by his office until 1 March 2010 but never date-stamped as having been ever received by his office on any date? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it takes a while to go through the system. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is it within the bounds of possibility that around February 2010 someone dropped to the fact that the gift from the Vela brothers would have to go on his pecuniary interests register and that to avoid awkward gibes from the Rt Hon Winston Peters someone got a backdated invoice from the Vela brothers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No the decision to ask for an invoice was to the best of my knowledge made within 48 hours of me taking the trip.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18476] 
9. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Why did she oppose a bill which sought to reintroduce youth rates and will she support a bill to introduce youth rates now that youth unemployment has hit an all-time high of 27.5 percent and 36.6 percent for Maori? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The National caucus opposed the bill at the time as we were not persuaded that it alone would reduce youth unemployment. In relation to the second part of the question like any other member’s bill caucus will consider it if it comes out of the ballot box. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Does she accept any responsibility for the 12000 young people who cannot get work because of the removal of youth rates and how does she justify spending $55 million of taxpayers’ money to employ less than half that number as announced in her youth employment package last week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I contest the fact that 12000 young people are not getting jobs because of the youth rates. The rates that she is talking about are for 15 to 19-year-olds and they are a tough group to find jobs for. The number is taken from the household labour force survey. Often those people are looking for only an hour’s work a week while they are studying. We actually recommend that young people stay in education and training for as long as they can; our focus is on schooling. We want to see them in schools we want to see them in work and we want to see them in training as much as we can. That is this Government’s focus. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Does she agree that youth rates give “employers a reason to hire younger people and give them a chance to get experience.” as stated by John Key in December 2007; if not what has changed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. That is why we also supported the training rates and why we support those other rates for young people—so yes.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18474] 
7. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What were the results of the 2010 Top Scholar Awards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister and I have just attended the awards ceremony at Government House where 26 students were named as Top Subject Scholars. The Top Scholar Awards recognise the No. 1 student in an individual Scholarship subject. Nine students received Premier Awards and these nine Premier Scholars gained at least four Scholarship subjects at “Outstanding” level. These students are Stewart Alexander of Christchurch Boys’ High School David Bellamy of Christ’s College Athene Laws of St Cuthbert’s College Stephen Mackereth of King’s College William Quach of Mount Roskill Grammar School Michael Tzu Min Wang of Macleans College Max Wilkinson of Papanui High School Yuanye Xu of Westlake Boys High School and Hao Jordan Zi of Mount Roskill Grammar School. These students are all performing at a world-class level and are great role models for all New Zealand students. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What was new about these awards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: 2010 was the inaugural year of the Prime Minister’s Award for Academic Excellence. This award is for the top achieving student in last year’s Scholarship awards. I am pleased to inform the House that the inaugural winner of this award is David Bellamy from Christchurch. David’s achievement is absolutely outstanding. He was just 16 when he sat the Scholarship exams and is a Premier Award winner and the Top Scholar in chemistry. In addition David achieved six Outstanding Scholarships in English biology chemistry mathematics with calculus statistics and modelling and physics.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18498] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 in the name of Charles Chauvel to add new paragraph (e) to clause 12 be agreed to.
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18518] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is good to speak during the Committee stage of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill. When members on this side heard the member opposite Damien O’Connor talking about farming going out of fashion it triggered a bit of thinking on this side. When we look at the title we remember that probably back in the 1990s Helen Clark was talking about the dairy industry and all the primary sector industries being sunset industries. So it is quite appropriate that we have the title Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill. One wants to think about the role that the primary sector is playing in the most difficult economic times in New Zealand I would imagine— 
Chris Tremain 
: Are you saying this is a memorial to Helen Clark? 
COLIN KING 
: I would say it is more of a memorial tomb to Helen Clark in the sense that listening to a number of the Labour members speak one would think the world did not start until 2008. There is a legacy whereby Labour miserably failed the primary sector. The very able Minister David Carter is taking this bill through the House extending provisions to ensure that the primary driver of this nation’s economy has certainty. That is very very important. I just advise members on the other side of the Chamber that we do not want to treat lightly the importance of this legislation. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill provides certainty going forward until we get everything else in order so that we can address the substantive matters. 
The title is very very appropriate. It is appropriate from the point of view that it is just a reminder to the Labour members. I have some sympathy for the former member for West Coast - Tasman because he is probably the final remnant of any rural representation of the Labour Party. When he goes we know that we will no longer— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on the title. 
COLIN KING 
: —have a dairy representative on the other side of the Chamber. The representatives will continue to be teachers academics and misguided unionists. 
This is a very very important bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on the title. 
COLIN KING 
: The title is the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill and it is appropriate even though it reminds us of what the Labour Party said back in the 1990s. It said that primary production was actually a sunset industry. It is a very appropriate title and it needs to be treated with great reverence and respect because this bill transitions us beyond where we were with the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. This bill bridges that gap until we get something more appropriate. Thank you very much.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18472] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 My question is to the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask both sides of the House again to extend some courtesy to Dr Russel Norman.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
O'Connor Damien: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18520] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I guess clause 4 is the substantive part of the technical side of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 inserts section 147 “Minister to certify that market share thresholds met”. 
I go back to the basis of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act and why it was set up. Fonterra being a dominant player the regulations in the Act guaranteed supply to other independent processors at an estimated quantum of about 5 percent of the total milk flow of Fonterra. As the industry has grown—and there has been fairly steady growth—there have been calls by independent processors for more milk and those thresholds have been changed. Now up to 600 million litres are available to independents. At what point does Fonterra become less dominant? In terms of that question there is a decision now that it should be once it reaches 80 percent of the total milk flow through dairy farmers. 
One of the issues dealt with here is how that percentage should be calculated. One of the very proud prosperous and smart regions that stood out was the West Coast. It remained independent at the formation of Fonterra and it was calculated that its milk should not necessarily be part of the South Island calculation for the dominance of Fonterra because of the Alps and a number of things. It was deemed at that time that West Coast farmers or Westland Milk Products could not participate or compete with Fonterra for farmers or vice versa. It has now been decided because of rail transport because Westland Milk Products has decided to set up a plant in Canterbury and because Fonterra is building a plant in Darfield and there is potential competition there—I do not think it is necessarily healthy competition but that is another story—that the thresholds should be changed. If Fonterra reaches 80 percent of the total milk flow including the West Coast milk in the South Island then the Minister would be obliged to review the situation. 
He has announced that he is doing that anyway. This is the particular technical point that is made effectively redundant by changing political considerations. I think the Minister should have announced that review prior to tabling this bill. None the less we have gone forward. Labour supports the change in the threshold on the basis that it is more sensible but we remind the Committee that this bill is something of an academic exercise because of the Minister’s review.
Hughes Gareth: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18527] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I forgot to vote in opposition to the final clause. Could the vote be held again? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already cast the vote and it is too late I am afraid. [ 
Interruption 
] Was the member wishing to vote against this? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: That’s right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well the member could seek leave. It would for the Committee to decide but I have already cast the vote. If the member wishes to seek leave he may. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Thanks Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for a party vote to be called in this Committee stage.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A party vote is called for on clause 4. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to.
Upston Louise: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18492] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Clendon David: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18462] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I thank the speaker who just resumed her chair Louise Upston for a very spirited delivery. I have to say the spirit made up for the lack of substance shall we say. Good spirit is always welcome at this time on a Thursday. 
I will reference some of the language the member used. She talked about the three organisations or three elements apparently of the framework that has been structured. She talked about responsibility and she is quite right: the Environmental Protection Authority will carry a burden of responsibility. She talked about it having some ability to direct policy. I point the member to the word “authority”. I agree entirely that this organisation will have some responsibility and it may have some power to direct but it will have no authority. The title is a misnomer which is a point we have made already. 
I reference clause 7 entitled “EPA is Crown entity”; I suspect an “a” is missing in there. I question why of the three available levels of independence the lowest level of independence or autonomy has been chosen for this entity. I reference the Greens’ minority report. Under section 7 of the Crown Entities Act the authority will be constituted as a Crown entity and under section 7(1)(a) of that Act the entity “must give effect to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister.” This entity will clearly be a creature of the Minister. It puts the primary direction of the Environmental Protection Authority into the realm of ministerial policy. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18457] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18459] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call to respond to two of the points made by Charles Chauvel. The first is a point that has also been made by the Green Party members. Why they ask do we not put a specific environmental protection function into all the decisions that the Environmental Protection Authority makes? The very simple answer to that is this. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: An overarching requirement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes but let us just test that. Would that achieve the objective? I put these questions to members of the Opposition. Does the Resource Management Act protect the environment? Yes it does. Does the Ozone Layer Protection Act protect the environment? Of course it does. Does the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act protect the environment? Of course it does. [ 
Interruption 
] So the issue I put to Steve Chadwick who is interjecting is this: if we have a different set of objectives in this legislation when the authority comes to perform its functions in those other Acts we will end up with a legal mess. If Labour wants to create that sort of legislation well it would be pretty typical but that is not where this Government stands. That is why that is not a sensible proposition. 
I refer to the second approach and that is in respect of the exclusive economic zone and Charles Chauvel’s amendment. I have a simple question for him. Do we really think that the marine environment would be better managed? Let me tell members what the amendment would do. Who is responsible for managing the fish if we say it is the role of the Environmental Protection Authority to manage the exclusive economic zone? All the amendment says is “to carry out the environmental management of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone”. What a mess! We would have the Environmental Protection Authority and the Ministry of Fisheries under a whole number of Acts with functions. What about marine mammals? They are the responsibility of the Department of Conservation. So what is Labour saying about the department’s role in protecting marine mammals? 
The reality is that if this Committee votes for the amendment that has been put forward by Charles Chauvel we will end up with an awful mess whereby neither the authority nor the Department of Conservation nor the Ministry of Fisheries—[ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick says that somehow that would not be the case. This legislation sets out the functions very clearly between those bodies and if members vote for this amendment who I ask Steve Chadwick will be responsible for fisheries? There is silence. Labour has no idea. The amendment has not been properly thought through and that is why National will not be supporting these sorts of amendments which are nothing more than political grandstanding. National will do the hard yards to come up with really good legislation that will properly protect the exclusive economic zone and provide the sort of environmental framework that this country deserves.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18457] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18456] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; Maori Party 2; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61 Noes 59. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 5: 
5AAct to give effect to Treaty of Waitangi 
This Act must so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the point of order is but members know that votes shall be held in silence. In the past members have been ejected from the Chamber for the kinds of comments that are currently being made. I do not want to have to do that. I just caution members that votes will be held in silence; otherwise I will adopt that other approach.
Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18456] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. My understanding was that the alternative amendment on this question was lodged before this amendment. Would that not entitle it to be voted on first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: This amendment is to insert new clause 3A. Chronologically it occurs earlier in the bill so the question is put on this amendment first. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 3: 
3ATreaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) 
In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi— 
(a)section 17 establishes the Maori Advisory Committee to advise the Environmental Protection Authority on policy process and decisions of the EPA under an environment Act; and 
(b)the EPA and any person acting on behalf of the EPA must comply with the requirements of an environmental Act in relation to the Treaty when exercising powers or functions under that Act.
Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18455] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I recognise that it is your absolute discretion as to whether to put this question but I wonder whether you would hear me on one matter. It relates to the fact that as Ruth Dyson pointed out in her contribution this is the only time that the House will have the opportunity to debate this new and novel Treaty clause. I implore you to allow one or two more calls on it because this debate is the only parliamentary scrutiny that this clause will get. I would very much like to be able to speak in a bit more detail about it. I think it would be really important— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I appreciate the member’s concern. I have been listening very carefully to the debate both before I came into the Chamber and currently. Every member in the Chamber seeking a call has had one and the member himself has had two calls. There are only three clauses in this part. I understand what the member is saying but I have listened to the debate and I have determined that it is time that I put the question on the closure motion.
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18455] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Calder Cam: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18453] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18442] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This Government is serious about providing the right levers for building safer communities and that includes road safety. The bill has come about as a result of Safer Journeys the Government’s road strategy to 2020. This vision recognises that although it is impossible to prevent all road crashes from happening we can stop many from resulting in death and serious injury. 
The fact is that our progress in this area has lagged and we are behind Australia in many of our statistics. The fact is that each year hundreds of people are killed on our roads almost 3000 are seriously injured and thousands suffer minor injuries. The social and economic impact on our country is absolutely devastating. 
The concerning fact is that young New Zealanders aged between 15 and 24 have a fatality rate that is 60 percent worse than that of Australia and young drivers are overrepresented in our statistics. This bill is aimed at improving the safety of young drivers and giving the courts more options and tougher sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders. The measures that target high-risk drivers include measures such as a zero blood-alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers and harsher prison sentences for dangerous driving causing death. The offenders at this end of the spectrum are the Government’s first target because of their high contribution to the statistics. This Government will not tolerate persistent high-level offending. 
Young people sadly are overrepresented in the crash statistics and there are a number of measures regarding young drivers in the bill including raising the driving age to 16—our members are certainly all supportive of that—and making a restricted driver’s licence more difficult to obtain. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.