edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Finlayson Christopher: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6653] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I think I have really said my bit and will therefore be very brief. I do acknowledge the huge help of the ministry officials. I think Chelly Walton and Boris van Beusekom have done a superb job working with the Justice and Electoral Committee as has Robert Fisher QC. I think the legislation that is about to emerge from the Committee is a good piece of work and that work was done in a bipartisan way by various representatives of parties in this Chamber. So I am delighted that the bill has come through in this shape. 
I have no doubt at all that in due course amendments will be needed but I sincerely hope for the Minister’s and the ministry’s sakes we have not made any howlers in the body of the legislation such as will necessitate an urgent amendment bill before the end of the year. If that is the case I certainly do not intend to be around. I simply emphasise that this is new legislation— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: All care and no responsibility. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: All care and no responsibility as Harry says—which is fair enough. I simply emphasise that once the bill is passed it will be a new day and I certainly hope the passage of this legislation will result in us seeing a real raising of standards in the High Court. 
It was interesting when I asked a member of the Legislation Advisory Committee in the select committee whether he thought the standard of knowledge of the law of evidence was particularly good in this country and he said that no it was not. This legislation gives the practitioners and the judges a chance really to master the rules of evidence. They will have the key rules of evidence available to them in a coherent form and readily available and in my opinion there will be no excuse for not ensuring that standards rise. That in itself will help the just speedy and efficient dispatch of both civil and criminal proceedings. 
I recall being in the gallery many years ago when I was watching the passage of the Evidence Amendment Bill (No 2) and listening to Sir Geoffrey Palmer go on about such cases as  
Hollington v Hewthorne 
 and so on. The debate on that bill all those years ago covered only three or four matters whereas this bill covers a huge variety of matters. So I am delighted it is about to be passed and I must emphasise the huge contribution made by the Minister’s officials and the very pleasant and productive team that worked on this bill.
Finlayson Christopher: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6652] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Having bored the Committee silly on Part 3 I will be very brief on Part 5. There is only one clause I want to address: clause 194A. An important issue arose in the select committee. The issue was how once the legislation has been passed we will ensure that it is kept up to date. That is an important factor bearing in mind the legislative history of the Evidence Act which was first enacted in 1908 then amended three or four times. The last real substantial amendment to the Evidence Act 1908 was the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) of 1980. So periodic review of this kind of legislation raises important questions. Given the huge amount of work that has been done by the Law Commission over the years and more recently the excellent work by the ministry it is important to ensure that the new legislation is kept up to date. On the other hand we do not want to see regular amendments as soon as there has been a case on a particular aspect. In other words the legislation will need to have time to settle down. 
That is why we discussed how we would best go with periodic review and who should do it. I will briefly address that second question first: should it be the Law Commission which was responsible for preparation of the report; should it be the select committee; or should it be the ministry? We took advice from the Law Commission and from the ministry. As a consequence of that we decided that the appropriate body for this legislation would be the Law Commission. The next issue is how frequently it should be reviewed. Clause 194A(1) answers that question: “as soon as practicable after 1 December 2011 or any later date set by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
” and thereafter on at least one occasion during each 5-year period following that date the Law Commission will consider this legislation. 
I commend this bill to the Committee as a good model for post-legislative review. I am not saying that it should be all legislation but certainly with this kind of legislation we do not want those finicky amendments that sometimes bedevil legislation. It will be good for the body that authored the reports that gave rise to the legislation to look at this legislation after it has been in operation for 5 years and in a principled way go through the various provisions to see whether the sorts of innovations we have been talking about this afternoon actually work and if they do not what changes need to be made. So I simply say that it is a good and workable clause and it will enable this very important area of the law to be kept up to date not in a piecemeal or an episodic fashion but in a principled way. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6649] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. I referred in my earlier remarks to the Supplementary Order Paper’s reference to clause 88(1) dealing with cross-examination duties. As I noted then this is perhaps the other significant matter dealt with in the Supplementary Order Paper along with the minor technical changes etc. It has been amended effectively to include explicitly in subclause (1) that the duty to cross-examine arises when there are significant matters that are relevant and in issue that contradict the evidence of the witness and that the witness can reasonably be expected to give admissible evidence on. I think it is fair to say that the requirement added by this amendment will prevent the party who is cross-examining from having to ask questions about which there is actually no dispute. It is arguable that this requirement is implied already in the clause but I think the amendment clarifies and therefore prevents any possible argument about the scope of the duty of the clause.
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6640] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief preliminary call and thank the member Christopher Finlayson for his comments. He has covered the key issues of Part 1 including the relevant parts of the Supplementary Order Paper. As he indicated although the Supplementary Order Paper generally has relevance to each part of the bill and proposes essentially minor changes—correcting errors omissions and so on—his comments on this part relating to the definition of “document” are very much relevant. I take this opportunity to refer to what is perhaps the other significant part of the Supplementary Order Paper which is in respect of Part 3 and refers to cross-examination of duties. Perhaps they are the two significant aspects of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I take the opportunity to echo comments made at an earlier stage. Firstly I acknowledge the Law Commission’s good work over many years and that of ministry officials. Most recently and in particular members of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the subcommittee including the member who has just resumed his seat have done outstanding work. That work is long overdue. It will serve the interests of simplifying and drawing together law of evidence into one place effectively from a functional point of view and will certainly serve the interests of all New Zealanders over the years to come. 
With those opening comments I look forward to continuing the progress of this bill through the House.
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6638] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Before we go into the Committee stage I seek leave following discussion between the whips I understand for Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 which are Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3 to be taken as a single debate and to be followed by two questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6638] 
Business of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Before we go into the Committee stage I seek leave following discussion between the whips I understand for Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 which are Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3 to be taken as a single debate and to be followed by two questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6631] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In relation to the previous question from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an email from the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour Dr James Buwalda which acknowledges the department could have done better in providing information in writing to Minister’s offices on immigration matters. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an email from Dr Mary Anne Thompson the Department of Labour’s workforce deputy secretary advising her staff to follow the new procedures set out by the chief executive. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6627] 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress has been made on modernising the legislative environment for the New Zealand Police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In March this year I announced a comprehensive review of the Police Act 1958 to bring the legislation up to date for the 21st century. Since then consultation has been occurring around the country and so far seven issue papers have been released by the New Zealand Police team that is coordinating the review. This evening the process goes one step further when I open the New Zealand Police - Victoria University of Wellington School of Government symposium on the future of policing in this country. I expect this to be a challenging and invigorating symposium at which overseas policing and criminology experts and academics will join local people in one of the most important debates to be held on policing in New Zealand for many years. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What support has there been for the review of the current Police Act which I understand is almost 50 years old? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have found considerable support for the review and the process being followed. The rewrite of the Act will take around 2 years to complete thereby giving many New Zealanders an opportunity to have an input. The New Zealand Police staff are taking a very keen interest in the review as are the Law Commission many other Government departments and members of the public. I am particularly pleased with the political parties that have agreed to be part of a multiparty approach to the important rewrite of this legislation. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is proposed as part of the review of the Police Act that police should receive the proceeds of assets that they confiscate from criminals; and is this the reason why the Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill sat for a year on the Order Paper before being pulled before its first reading? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. As the member knows his having received each one of the discussion documents that went out a series of questions have been asked in those documents; they do not pose answers nor do they suggest the direction that at the end of the day this Parliament will take when we rewrite that Act. The discussion documents ask the questions; they do not give the answers. It will be up to this Parliament and the people of New Zealand to give the answers.
Tanczos Nandor: Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based  Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based  Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6778] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I begin my speech by referring to this idea of race. Tony Ryall said the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill addresses raced-based legislation. I would like to point out to members of this House who often talk in those terms that “race” is an intellectually discredited term and has been since the 1940s when evolutionary scientists rejected it because race-based definitions are imprecise arbitrary have many exceptions have many gradations and the number of races observed depends on who is looking at them. In fact the very word “race” came out of European exploration of the world and was an adjunct to racism. 
In the face of the rejection of the concept of race by evolutionary scientists social scientists have replaced the term “race” with the term “ethnicity” which refers to self-identifying groups based on beliefs shared religion nationality or descent. An ethnic group is a population whose members identify with each other on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry and it is usually united by common cultural behavioural linguistic or religious practices. 
I say that because I am sick of hearing people talk about race when such a concept is an absolute fallacy. If members go to any university they will hear that. It is so frustrating to hear this constant rhetoric about race-based legislation when none of this legislation is about race at all and it never has been. Legislation that supports Maori aspirations or representation is not about racism—in fact it is the antithesis of it—in my view it is about democracy. 
I object to this legislation because it cuts across democracy. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill was brought to this House by Mita Ririnui on the request of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Who is Tony Ryall to try to repeal that Act? I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee that heard from submitters who had advocated for years to get that legislation before the House. They got the support of the regional council the legislation came here we passed it and now Tony Ryall thinks he has the right to turn around and spit in the face of all those people and this Parliament. 
The Local Electoral Act provides the option to establish Maori wards and constituencies. That is a local decision. Again who is Tony Ryall to prohibit that? He argues that no council has adopted that measure but that just proves that this legislation is a cheap stunt. If no one has adopted it what is the problem that he is trying to rectify? It is a cheap political stunt to bang on with the anti-Maori rhetoric that the National Party got their blip in the polls from. Frankly most of us in this House are absolutely sick of it. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Guy Nathan: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6773] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
National Business Review 
 of October 13 2006 which features the headline: “Airports get government permission to privatise”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Stewart Barbara: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6766] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the first reading of the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so that the public can have input into this particular issue. 
We believe that this issue is very important. We know for a fact that the original sale of the airport in 1995 by the last National Government was another example of a sale of a strategic asset. It was sold off very cheaply for $1.6 million despite the community’s opposition. Of course it was another totally unjust fire sale on the part of that National Government and the negative reports from the Auditor-General have emphasised that point. 
New Zealand First is totally opposed to the sale of strategic assets. We believe that airports and aerodromes are a key strategic asset and that public ownership is the very best way of giving such infrastructure a future. This bill will give the Government the first option to purchase the privatised airport land once it is put up for sale thus allowing the Government to return privatised regional airports to public ownership. In fact the only way we can give certainty to provincial and rural aerodromes is to ensure that they continue to have an aviation use. 
I recall that there was fog in Wellington on one occasion and I had to land at Paraparaumu Airport and be bussed to Wellington. So it is a very useful asset for Air New Zealand to have access to and for it to be able to land flights there. We in New Zealand First believe that legal safeguards are absolutely essential in order to ensure that airports fall under the Airport Authorities Act. Again we also believe that we need to protect our strategic assets. In many cases once those strategic assets have been sold and are gone we can never ever get them back. Sometimes it is to New Zealand’s detriment that we never have the use of those strategic assets again. So New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6760] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very unusual situation. It is the first time in my time that the House has voted on a bill 60 all. I point out to the House that it is the bill’s first reading. I would thus seek the leave of the House for the bill to be referred through to the select committee so at least the public may have the opportunity—in the select committee—to consider a bill that clearly has the House very evenly divided. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6760] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6755] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to the select committee so that the public can have their input into this legislation. That of course is a very valuable part of the process. 
This issue has been discussed extensively in the media. It has also been discussed extensively by the people of Whangamata and I know that people have contacted Peter Brown from New Zealand First and Winston Peters regarding this issue. We have received emails and many letters asking us to ensure that this issue is looked at again—hence our support for referral to the select committee. 
New Zealand First also considered drafting a bill on this very important issue called the “Whangamata Marina Bill”. I believe that it went into the ballot at one point in time. 
Residents over in the Whangamata area spent $1.3 million on taking this case through the Environment Court and thus far have not achieved anything. That is very very sad. 
 It was interesting too that the High Court decision actually supported the Environment Court. So we believe that further clarification of this matter is definitely required. The people of Whangamata do need some clarity. They do need to work through this particular issue. We believe that the select committee is the most important place for that to occur so we support the bill.
Vote: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6752] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6735] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to participate in the second reading of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by Dr Wayne Mapp. I also stand on behalf of my colleague Peter Brown who was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and who is our party’s spokesperson on such matters. 
First of all New Zealand First gave serious consideration to this bill. In fact part of that consideration was that we supported it on its first reading so that it could go to a select committee even though we had concerns about it. I ought to say that our first opinion of the bill has certainly not changed. My colleague described it as being draconian although it was promoted as helping people into jobs. 
We are not quite sure whether that was in fact the case but we recognise Dr Mapp’s attempt during the select committee deliberation to amend the bill along the lines that New Zealand First advocated. He suggested some amendments to address the concerns of many of us and during that process New Zealand First supported the amendments. Nevertheless they were defeated at the select committee and all I need to say is that I respect the decision of the select committee. The bill would have required further amending if it were to go any further but quite clearly there did not seem to be any political support for the bill. 
 I say to this House that New Zealand First has met with the Minister; I suppose that is part of the baubles of power that people keep reminding my leader about. We discussed with the Minister some of the issues that were raised during the select committee hearing. The Minister has agreed to address the problem of employment organisations that take on frivolous personal grievance claims against employers on a “no win no fee” basis. The Minister has also agreed to instigate a campaign to educate employers in regard to the current legislation that provides for probationary periods in an employment agreement. Quite clearly—and this was alluded to by one of the speakers from the Government—many small employers are unaware of the current legislation. I refer specifically to clause 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 
The Minister has also agreed to an inquiry into casualised employment with the intention of putting some rules in place to ensure fairness. The inquiry will be headed by a suitably qualified independent person. Negotiations between the Government and New Zealand First are ongoing and we expect them to be finalised so that the Minister will be in a position to announce full details in the first half of 2007. That particular inquiry will certainly address the concern that New Zealand First has in relation to casualisation. 
I will not take up any more of the time allocated to our party other than to say that New Zealand First has decided not to support this bill going any further.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6709] 
12.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does he agree with the Smokefree Coalition that the descriptors “light” or “mild” for cigarettes are “deliberately designed to give the false impression that light or mild brands are less injurious to health than so-called regular brands when evidence has clearly established that this is not the case”; if so does he have the power to ban the use of this kind of marketing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
: Yes; and yes. I agree that such terms may be interpreted by consumers as meaning they are smoking a less harmful product. Parliament does have the ability to pass legislation to ban the use of such terms. However the Commerce Commission is currently reviewing potentially misleading terms on tobacco products and I support this review. It is appropriate to await the outcome of the commission’s review and I note that this is how the issue was dealt with recently in Australia. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Government consider requiring that all tobacco displays in shops are put out of sight so that children for example do not associate cigarettes with the lollies they see around them and requiring all tobacco packaging to be generic—practices that would go some way towards curbing the kind of deceptive and dangerous marketing currently going on in New Zealand shops? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes issues of that ilk will be considered. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What actions will the Minister be taking following the World Health Organization’s indigenous forum on tobacco control held in Auckland last week in which a consistent theme was that the severe lack of resources allocated to Maori tobacco control groups such as Te Reo Marama Te Hotu Manawa Maori and Aukati Kai Paipa was injurious to indigenous health; and does he not agree that the fact that 44 percent of Maori are still smoking is an issue that requires significant investment for the betterment of the health of the nation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As Minister of Health I have advised the Associate Minister of Health that it is probably the case that there has been some underfunding of cessation programmes and that further tobacco control funding might be expected in the May 2007 Budget. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that very few smokers make brand choices while in the shop—that is that the brand a smoker starts smoking will be the brand that that smoker dies smoking; therefore the only reason tobacco companies want to have their products on display in shops is as a marketing tool to attract particularly new and very young users to be hooked on tobacco? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Associate Minister of Health has been advised that the sentiments behind the member’s question are for the most part accurate.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6702] 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What reports has he received on Government initiatives to increase access to high-quality New Zealand digital content? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 The Hon Judith Tizard the Minister responsible for the National Library and I launched the Draft New Zealand Digital Content Strategy last week. The digital content strategy is a 5-year plan that aims to help bring New Zealanders online. Creating Kiwi content is important to ensure that our unique heritage and national identity are strong visible and available in cyberspace thereby supporting an innovative and creative knowledge-based economy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is this digital content strategy important to the future of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Digital content is important because it can foster new product development and knowledge that will contribute to economic transformation. It has the potential to be a major area of skilled employment and export-led growth over the coming decade. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the point of investing in smart new high-resolution high-tech and high-quality digital television if all we have to watch on it is the same old diet of mostly low-quality foreign programmes and reruns; and will he therefore urge the Minister of Broadcasting to seek much more funding for New Zealand programming to ensure that all this investment in digital technology is actually worthwhile? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The question would be better put to the Minister of Broadcasting. But my own view is that he has done very well already for Television New Zealand.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6700] 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: Is a decision by the Government to proceed with a stadium on Auckland’s waterfront dependent upon the National Party committing to support the necessary special legislation; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister for the Rugby World Cup) 
: 
 No any legislation to empower the construction of any stadium will require 61 votes which may or may not include the 48 votes of the National Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Government had a commitment from United Future and New Zealand First to support the special legislation that is needed to ensure the waterfront stadium; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is involved in a process. We are awaiting an Auckland decision. The nature of that decision may well have a serious impact on the nature of any support that is given and therefore the potential to pass any legislation. I note— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He doesn’t know. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know what the outcome will be. I note that the special legislation required—possibly—to ensure the Eden Park option can proceed is already supported by the National Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Minister aware that the Eden Park Trust Board believes that it does not need special legislation; and is the Government putting a gun to the head of Auckland and telling it to decide this week when in fact the Government cannot ensure the numbers that should Auckland decide in favour of a waterfront stadium or against would get the necessary legislation through? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the Eden Park option is adopted then clearly there will need to be further examination of the process around that. The risk of course is that if the process proceeds on Eden Park without legislation and then some problem occurs—for example protracted legal process of a sort that we have just been referred to—Eden Park will not be able to be extended and we face a major difficulty. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Government using up the goodwill of New Zealanders towards funding projects in Auckland by throwing so much money at a billion-dollar waterfront stadium when clearly the greatest need in Auckland is for more money—hundreds of millions more dollars—to be spent on transport particularly public transport? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is spending billions more on transport in Auckland including public transport not a mere hundreds of millions. If the Green Party might like to make that an offer I am almost inclined to accept it and look at what else we could then spend the rest of the money on.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Bilateral Parliamentary Delegation Parliament of Australia India—Parliamentary Delegation Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Bilateral Parliamentary Delegation Parliament of Australia India—Parliamentary Delegation Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 
[Volume:635;Page:6693] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a bilateral parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Australia led by Senator Ross Lightfoot is present in the gallery. I also wish to inform members that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh India led by the Hon Mr Ishwardas Rohani is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegations be welcomed.
Visitors — Australia—Bilateral Parliamentary Delegation Parliament of Australia India—Parliamentary Delegation Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 
Visitors — Australia—Bilateral Parliamentary Delegation Parliament of Australia India—Parliamentary Delegation Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 
[Volume:635;Page:6693] 
Wednesday 22 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Bilateral Parliamentary Delegation Parliament of Australia 
India—Parliamentary Delegation Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a bilateral parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Australia led by Senator Ross Lightfoot is present in the gallery. I also wish to inform members that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh India led by the Hon Mr Ishwardas Rohani is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegations be welcomed.
Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6993] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 In concluding my call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill I would like to draw the House’s attention to part of the explanatory note and to also talk about the compliance costs around this amendment bill because I believe that that is the crux of this whole bill. The bill will end up before the Primary Production Committee and I think it will be critical for that committee to drill down into some of these compliance costs. 
The concern I have is the duplication around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. When Minister Damien O’Connor said in the House last night that there would be no increase in compliance costs it was interesting to hear the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen say: “Yeah right!” like the Tui billboard. But the important thing to realise which is stated in the explanatory note is: “It is not possible to estimate the monetary value of compliance costs associated with the proposed regulatory changes.” I think that that is an important issue. In particular for those businesses that will be transporting some of these products up and down the country there will be added costs in consultation and in filling out forms. It is interesting that it will cost $85 to have those registered to each individual person and that there will be a cost of $85 per hour. 
So National is supporting this bill to go to the select committee but we have some concerns particularly around compliance costs. I believe that that is where it will be extremely important for the select committee to iron those costs out and try to get a handle on exactly how much they will be. The important thing is that the people paying the costs will be the likes of farmers in New Zealand the grassroots people. Vegfed and the wine industry will also pick up any increasing costs around this amendment bill. So National is supporting the bill to go to the select committee but we do have some concerns. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.referred to Primary Production Committee
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6993] 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 December. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 In concluding my call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill I would like to draw the House’s attention to part of the explanatory note and to also talk about the compliance costs around this amendment bill because I believe that that is the crux of this whole bill. The bill will end up before the Primary Production Committee and I think it will be critical for that committee to drill down into some of these compliance costs. 
The concern I have is the duplication around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. When Minister Damien O’Connor said in the House last night that there would be no increase in compliance costs it was interesting to hear the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen say: “Yeah right!” like the Tui billboard. But the important thing to realise which is stated in the explanatory note is: “It is not possible to estimate the monetary value of compliance costs associated with the proposed regulatory changes.” I think that that is an important issue. In particular for those businesses that will be transporting some of these products up and down the country there will be added costs in consultation and in filling out forms. It is interesting that it will cost $85 to have those registered to each individual person and that there will be a cost of $85 per hour. 
So National is supporting this bill to go to the select committee but we have some concerns particularly around compliance costs. I believe that that is where it will be extremely important for the select committee to iron those costs out and try to get a handle on exactly how much they will be. The important thing is that the people paying the costs will be the likes of farmers in New Zealand the grassroots people. Vegfed and the wine industry will also pick up any increasing costs around this amendment bill. So National is supporting the bill to go to the select committee but we do have some concerns. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.referred to Primary Production Committee
Tisch Lindsay: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6992] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National has supported this bill right through. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments on the Government Administration Committee and on the work that officials put in. National had a major input into this bill with Shane Ardern being the chairperson of the select committee and Brian Connell and Sandra Goudie making contributions. National has supported this bill right through. It is important legislation and it is very interesting that the whole Committee is supporting it tonight. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 82 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6992] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Part 2 does not need an awful lot of debate but it seems that because there is a Supplementary Order Paper coming at the end of it I should make a few remarks. The Supplementary Order Paper makes minor changes to the very good work done by the Government Administration Committee and I take the opportunity to thank the select committee again for its work on what has been a difficult piece of legislation and to acknowledge the work of the Law Commission and in particular of Sir Geoffrey Palmer in dealing with some of the difficult constitutional matters. 
I also acknowledge as they are in the Chamber the work of a huge number of officials especially in the calendar year 2005 and the first half of 2006 as we got this plan together and indeed the work of people from all around the hospital sector and other sectors in this country who have put together what is probably the best pandemic plan in the Western World—if not the best then one of the best. 
I say to my colleague from Kaitaia that yes I am sure that a lot of people do not know what to do but one thing he can do when he goes home this weekend is first make sure that in his house he has a bag of rice some water and some Panadol—and in case it is not a pandemic but actually an earthquake—some batteries and so on. Then he should ring again the person he was talking to and invite her to do the same thing. These are basic things we can all do and they are a start. I commend this legislation.
Stewart Barbara: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6991] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. We must like every other party congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the great job it has done. It has been quite interesting to hear from other speakers that the memory of previous epidemics looms large in the minds of all of us here in this Chamber particularly the flu epidemic at the end of World War I. 
Fortunately for us or perhaps unfortunately—one can argue both sides of that argument—we have no real experience to draw on in this particular case so of course the planning needs to be very thorough. Fortunately the majority of us did not experience the Edgecumbe earthquake. It was very interesting to hear what happened there. But when we think back to the tsunami on Boxing Day 2 years ago it was quite interesting for us to hear that some people actually went down to the beach to look at that wave of water approaching. Some people wanted to be part of it. The call to go to higher ground was basically ignored; people believed they would be safe. 
In the case of a flu epidemic we would experience much the same problems here. We do not really know enough to be thoroughly organised so we need legislation of this nature to be put in place early. We do not want to have to organise ourselves right at the time of a flu epidemic; we need to be organised prior to that point. It is very good that the select committee and officials have identified problem situations particularly those regarding the summoning of Parliament or its recall during an epidemic. 
In any situation such as this power is required by the Prime Minister the Minister of Health and obviously the Director-General of Health to put this plan into place. We know that we may need to delay the sitting of the House of Parliament. I was quite interested to read in the commentary that there is currently no mechanism to do so when the House is adjourned or to delay Parliament’s summoning beyond the 6-week deadline after the return of the writ. 
Another issue to be considered was where the House should meet because obviously travel will be very challenging. We have heard from previous speakers that taxis air flights trains—any way to get home—will be the priority. It will be very difficult to return to Wellington to meet in the one location. 
So we believe that Part 1 is as thorough as it can be at this particular point in time. New Zealand First supports this part. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6984] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill  
divided into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 80 
.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6983] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You ruled against the previous speaker speaking from another desk. But under Speakers’ ruling 45/6 it is quite clear that a speaker can speak from any desk that he or she likes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I think it is from any desk in the group of seats allocated to the party. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 45/6 states: “(1) There is no limitation on where members may address the Chair from. Members may use their own desk or another member’s; (2) or come to the Table if they want to.” That implies to me that the previous speaker could have spoken from wherever he wished to speak from. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The issue was raised by Mr David Benson-Pope. He was wrong and I ruled wrongly. So I apologise to Mr Hone Harawira but I do think he looks more comfortable with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell.