edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:830] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5A 
The Minister will on or before 30 June 2009 table in Parliament a report on the financial and unemployment effects of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill on New Zealand’s tallow to biodiesel industry.
King Colin: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:829] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Adams Amy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:828] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:826] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I will clear this matter up by going through a bit of an order of what happened. Firstly on 2 December BioDiesel Oils wrote to the Ministry of Economic Development to a Mr Joe Connell. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Don’t mention the name. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I mentioned his name because the member did. Mr Connell was engaged— 
Hon Members 
: He did not! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He did actually. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I did not mention his name. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members should not be silly; the  
Hansard  
record will show that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think I did mention it the first time; it was a mistake. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Thank you. Subsequent to that on 4 December BioDiesel Oils wrote to me. That letter was written by a Mr Tom McNicholl and I am now informed that he attached to that letter the letter that had been sent some days before to the Ministry of Economic Development. 
On 11 December following our announcement I received a further letter from Tom McNicholl via Sue Wood. That letter will be responded to of course in due course but in the interim I asked my office to make contact with Mrs Wood in order that we might have a meeting with Mr McNicholl. That meeting and that offer were rejected.
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:822] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Borrows Chester: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:821] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:819] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:812] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:812] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:811] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “Part 3A is repealed” and substitute “Sections 34B to 34F and 34I to 34ZA of Part 3A are repealed”.
Dean Jacqui: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:811] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:808] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
:  
It would be great if those opposing this Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill actually knew what we were talking about because quite clearly there is some confusion about the principal Act that this Labour Opposition believes we are dealing with. I will make it very very clear. Nothing in the bill that we are debating today will prevent the development and promulgation of sustainability standards. 
Mr Hodgson asked what will be the principal Act against which those regulations are set. It remains as it always has the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989. Part 4 provides for a number of things. Section 35(1)(c) provides that sustainability standards for all fuels sold in New Zealand should be published. All I can say is that this section is not being repealed so the obligation in the sense of sustainability standards remains in place. 
Hon Members 
: It’s not an obligation. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it is actually. We think it is an obligation. We as the Government believe we are obligated to provide sustainability standards for those who want to sell biofuel in New Zealand and we will do that. The officials have started the work. They have indicated that under the previous Government’s work plan it might have taken them 3 or 4 years to get there. We have said that we want it much much sooner than that. We do appreciate though that no country in the world has developed those standards yet. The European Union has been at it for some 13 years and has not got there yet. But the National-led Government will make it sometime during next year. 
The other thing I would say to Moana Mackey is that section 35(1)(d) of the principal Act provides that there should be a statement at the pump regarding the sustainability of the fuel being sold. That section is also not being repealed today. What we have is simply a bill that takes out the obligation that says biofuel must be sold in New Zealand at particular percentages by the fuel companies—the ones that are selling fuel. 
It is the compulsion aspect that will kill sustainability in New Zealand: the short showers that New Zealanders were almost restricted to the types of light bulbs that people have to buy and also now the blend of fuel that people must put inside their fuel tanks. That is what was wrong with the approach of the previous Government and that is what is being changed. 
I will say it again. At the moment 20 million - plus litres of biofuel are produced in New Zealand each year. It is being sold somewhere and the development of further plant to produce biofuels will see those sales increase.
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:806] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:791] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 This is just a brief call. I was most interested to hear the previous speaker because he covered a range of discussion that probably we should have started this debate with because it includes very important features. I suggest though that the weak part of the Opposition’s argument is the compulsive nature of the regulation; that is the bit that is being changed. The previous speaker ended on the subject of tallow and how efficient it is at making biofuels. Tallow is a by-product in many cases but I wonder what happens to those products that would normally be made of tallow. We cannot introduce— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s not a serious point! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is a serious point. It is just as serious as biofuel’s taking away food production from Mexicans is a serious point. For those who use tallow the matter of tallow production is a serious point if suddenly those people do not have that base product any more. 
However the previous speaker concentrated on the sustainability aspect and the standards that are being torn out by this bill going through. The reality is that they are not: the standards will continue to be developed they will be developed by the officials and that will be done in exactly the same time frame as or even sooner than would have been possible through the legislation that is now being changed. Therefore the central objection to this bill is void because the standards will be made they will be achieved and furthermore they will be produced by people who actually want to produce them. The whole business will not be based on the compulsive negative aspect and it will benefit from the change.
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:789] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Good morning to you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker and to my fellow parliamentarians; and good morning to all the listeners and viewers. 
I remind everybody that we are debating under urgency the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. This bill is a clear indication that John Key’s National-led Government is fulfilling its election promises. During the lead-up to the election National campaigned on dumping the Labour Government’s Biofuel Bill. We intend to apply a consistent tax incentive for sustainable biofuels exempting ethanol and bio-diesel from excise and road-user charges in proportion to the blend. We are also committed to developing a process for approving the tax exemption of sustainable biofuel taking into account the impact of the net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on biodiversity and food supply. 
National is committed to encouraging the development of the biofuel industry but unlike the previous Labour Government we listen to and trust New Zealanders. We know that New Zealanders will make informed choices. We are not like the Labour Government which believed in compulsion and did not place any trust in New Zealanders to make the right choices. Even before the introduction of compulsion in relation to the sale of biofuel New Zealanders could purchase biofuel. 
We all know the negative impact of rushing into new territory. We know that the first generation of biofuel sources had a devastating effect on many economies when people turned food crops into biofuel. We also understand and have seen the impact on deforestation of rushing headlong into pushing biofuels. We believe that in order to encourage development and place trust in New Zealanders to make those choices it is important to dump this last piece of compulsion. I congratulate the Hon Gerry Brownlee on diligently putting the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill before the House.
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1906] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call in relation to Part 2 in the Committee stage. 
I agree with Lynne Pillay that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill stands for a great purpose—that crime should not pay. Part 2 achieves that purpose. It puts it into play and implements it. Part 2 is also the lion’s share of the bill—approximately 220 clauses. They provide for the restraining orders and for the civil forfeiture orders. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1906] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1830] 
4.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What actions has he taken to address the shortfall in funding for community law centres? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Community law centres are funded primarily by revenue from the Lawyers and Conveyancers Special Fund which consists of 60 percent of the interest earned on solicitors’ trust accounts. However the slowing housing market coupled with a cut in interest rates meant they were facing a funding cut of about 68 percent. The Government was not prepared to allow that to happen to such an important service which is even more vital in difficult economic times. Last night I was very pleased to announce at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Community Law Centres of Aotearoa that the Government will put in place interim measures that will provide them with the same level of funding next year as they enjoyed in 2008-09. I know that many members from all parties have been approached on this issue as part of their constituency work and I take this opportunity to thank them for their constructive approach on this issue. 
Chester Borrows 
: What actions will the Minister take to ensure that funding of community law centres is more secure in the long term? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government does not want community law centres to find themselves in the same predicament again in a year’s time. In addition to the interim measure I announced last night we have also commenced work on finding an enduring funding framework to ensure continuity of services provided by the centres. I intend to involve the Coalition of Community Law Centres of Aotearoa in this work and I would like to thank Kevin Campbell and his team for their willingness to engage in a constructive way on this difficult issue. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When does the Minister intend to respond to my letter of 10 February 2009 in which I proposed both the measures he announced last night; and will he accept the offer I made in that letter to work collaboratively with the Government to develop the durable solutions that are needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In answer to the first question I say very soon. In answer to the second question I say yes.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1831] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document relating to question No 3 entitled “GEO Group Inc.: Despite a Crashing Economy Private Prison Firm Turns a Handsome Profit” produced by CorpWatch on 1 March 2009 detailing the criminal mismanagement of private prisons by GEO Group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask who produced the article? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: CorpWatch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1906] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Boscawen John: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1905] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It had not been my intention to take a call in this debate. However I feel honour-bound to stand up and respond to some of the comments that came from the Labour member Raymond Huo. 
Mr Huo seems to think that if he continues to repeat a mistruth it might somehow gain credence in this Chamber and in this community. In addressing the Committee Mr Huo talked about the internationally failed ideas of the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation. Those were his words. He also said that he did not know how to describe it. Well if Mr Huo does not know how to describe it I would be very happy to explain it to him. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It would be nice if members tried to pronounce names correctly. That is not the correct pronunciation. The pronunciation is “Haw”. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is no point of order. Would the member just continue with his speech. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you and my apologies to Mr Huo. 
The member said he did not know how to describe the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation. Let me just explain. ACT’s “three strikes” bill is not a failed idea. It seeks to clamp down on criminals in New Zealand who commit serious violent crimes on a repeated basis—on a repeated basis. The people of New Zealand do not need to be protected from shoplifters or petty burglars. They need to be protected from people who commit serious violent crime. When Parliament starts to look at the victims of crime and addresses how we make society safer we will start to make progress in society. The way the “three strikes” bill will operate—as proposed by the ACT Party—is that if a person commits a serious violent crime he or she will be sentenced for whatever term the court awards— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has had ample time to respond to what I think was a passing comment made by Mr Huo. This debate is about another bill; this is not an opportunity to speak up about other aspects of the ACT Party policy. I invite the member to address the bill please. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will conclude my remarks by just saying that I was not prepared to sit here and have a mistruth go unchallenged. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to:
Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1905] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In response to the concerns raised by the member who has just resumed her seat I say that I went over this territory last night in respect of advice I have received. The advice was that Maori who have multiple ownership structures in place for land when they are innocent of an alleged offence that has been committed on the land in which they have an interest have instruments available to them to exercise their rights. That does not mean that those rights will necessarily or automatically accrue but a process is in place. I can say to the member that I will watch carefully to see how the provision is utilised and I give her an assurance that I will monitor the situation carefully.
Katene Rahui: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Katene Rahui: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1904] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call to explain the concerns of the Maori Party about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and its effect on Maori land. We all know that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was enacted to halt the alienation of Maori land. However just last year contrary to that principle in considering a situation under the existing legislation a District Court judge decided that the existing legislation overrode Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and that Maori land was available for seizure. In that case the judge considered that Parliament wanted the court to confiscate Maori land. I do not know where he could have possibly got that idea from but he thought that Parliament wanted the court to confiscate Maori land. That judge thought that the existing legislation on the proceeds of crime should override the principle that Maori should retain the small amount of Maori land remaining to us. 
In its current form this bill does not correct that view. Mr Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper provides the opportunity to us at Parliament to correct what I hope is a mistake in perception. If we do not do that there is a chance that more Maori land will be at risk. Last evening the Minister told my colleague Mr Flavell that he had been advised by officials that innocent owners would be able to make application to the court that the land should not be sold. Let me explain to members how that will work. I have an interest in a Maori land block on Rangitoto ki te Tonga / D’Urville Island. I live in Christchurch work in Wellington for 3 or 4 days of most weeks and travel around my electorate the rest of the time. I never get to Rangitoto no matter how much I yearn to. I do not know what is happening on that land block from day to day or even from month to month but I am spiritually attached to that block because it is the only speck of land left from the vast landholdings that my iwi held years ago. It is where many of my tupuna are buried. 
However suppose unbeknownst to me one of my distant whanaunga was suspected—not convicted but suspected—of cultivating weed on the block. If that whanaunga was arrested under this bill the land would be seized. There would be no court case and therefore no resultant publicity. The alleged offender would be too whakama to say anything about it to any of the other owners and the land would be sold—bang! It would be too late to apply to the court. When would I have the chance to stop this confiscation? When would any of the innocent owners have the chance to go to court to prevent this sale? If I like most Maori land owners could not afford to make this application or to pay for a lawyer who would pay to make this application? The advice the Minister has received is worth less than this paper that I am reading from. The only other way we could make a change to this provision is to make an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I invite the Minister to take a call to respond to our concerns.
Woodhouse Michael: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1899] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As the curtain falls on the debate on what has been variously described as a technical bill a tidy-up bill or a simplifying bill I reflect on some of the discourse that has taken place. 
At the various stages of this bill speakers have been at pains to point out that this legislation is not intended to contribute to a reduction in alcohol-related harm. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which was introduced yesterday and other bills that are coming up are appropriately designed to do that. Those speakers usually went on to describe the very good work done by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) and other organisations that work to reduce alcohol-related harm. We were also treated to a confessional from members who described aspects of their ill-spent youth. Of course they are now reformed. No MPs I know would abuse alcohol—at least that they can remember. 
More seriously we debated the concerning aspects of the very public disorder of events in my own home town of Dunedin such as the toga parade the Undie 500 and other alcohol-fuelled events. We also heard some very serious descriptions from Messrs Flavell Jones and others of the serious harm alcohol can cause and it is on this relevant—for me—issue that I will reflect. Last Saturday night a friend who was a former colleague and one of the nicest people I have ever met was killed in a car accident in Central Otago. Investigations into the cause of the crash are continuing but early indications are that alcohol played a part in the actions of the driver of the other vehicle. Alcohol may once again have taken a life and destroyed the lives of many others. No amount of legislation education advertising or attempts at behaviour change will prevent this type of tragedy from occurring. 
Although we may differ on the manner and the extent to which this House intervenes in the lives of its citizens I believe we all have a fundamental goal at the heart of our reason for being here. It is to protect support and encourage the well-being of our citizens socially psychologically and financially. So when we sometimes light-heartedly debate a technical bill an update bill a simplifying bill or a bill that will not set the world on fire I hope that we do not lose sight of the goal of passing laws—however technical—that improve the safety and quality of the lives of the citizens of our great nation. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its safe passage. 
Bill read a third time.
Turei Metiria: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1892] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make just a very short contribution tonight. The Green Party is supporting this bill and we are pleased to do so. 
I hear a number of concerns from other members about the drinking culture and the kinds of messages that social marketing is trying to send to the community about the dangers inherent in drinking. Of course alcohol is a drug like any other drug. It is one of the two major legal drugs in this country. The problem as I see it is that alcohol is not treated as a drug in law and in regulation. It would be consistent and indeed a very good message for this Parliament to send to have alcohol listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I imagine it would be most appropriately listed in schedule 4 and be what is known as a class D drug. 
If that was to happen alcohol could be dealt with by regulation; Parliament would not have to deal with legislation every time we wanted to make a change. We would then be able to provide very strict regulations about the advertising of alcohol and about the provision of alcohol in the community and we would be able to deal with issues like these levies and taxes on alcohol all within a regulatory framework that would put alcohol squarely where it belongs which is alongside other drugs that impact on our community. It would be a very consistent position if we were to put tobacco into the Misuse of Drugs Act as well—in the same schedule—and therefore give this Parliament the Government more control over how regulations and restrictions are set for the sale the marketing and of course the display of those drugs in our community. 
We must be serious about the harms those drugs cause to our community. They are serious harms. Those drugs cause deaths. I think it is 5000 deaths a year for tobacco and 1000 deaths a year for alcohol. People are being killed by the use of those drugs so they should be treated as other drugs are treated. It is clear that there is no real drive to reintroduce prohibition for the drug alcohol and the drug tobacco. But that is why we have in law the capacity for a schedule 4 class D classification in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It sends the message to the community that drugs when misused—particularly by young people but also by the community as a whole—are harmful. Therefore Parliament should rightly have the role of setting restrictions on how those drugs should be used. That would be a consistent position; that would send a consistent message. It would also send a consistent message to the producers of these drugs the manufacturers of these drugs that Parliament and the country consider them to be harmful and will take the maximum amount of responsibility for controlling them in a way that reduces the harm that we have seen them cause to our people.
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:652;Page:1862] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support both motions. I think the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee has adequately outlined the background to these motions. I think it is somewhat strange that every 3 years we have to have a motion that outlines the duties of the Intelligence and Security Committee because it is the same motion every time. It seems to me that at some stage we should define in the actual Act what the functions of the committee are precisely and deal simply with the issue of membership of the committee on a 3-yearly basis. 
The Intelligence and Security Committee is designed to represent both or all—depending upon one’s point of view—sides of the House. There is a fundamental catch 22 about having a committee on security matters. By the very nature of things one cannot deal in open committee with much of what the intelligence services deal with. As I think both Dr Norman and Mrs Turia will find out perhaps they will be disappointed that even the Intelligence and Security Committee consisting of relatively senior members of the House does not actually delve into vast amounts of detail. If they think they are going to find out where all our spies are stationed around the world exactly what they get up to and whom they are watching they will be deeply disappointed. 
There is no doubt that the argument will be made in a few moments that this committee should be an ordinary parliamentary select committee and go through ordinary parliamentary select committee processes. I do not believe that that is a real possibility in practice. All that tends to lead to at the end of the day is a great deal of misleading information probably being presented to the committee and the real information being presented to the Prime Minister and perhaps to the Leader of the Opposition who has always been kept in the loop on security matters long before the 1996 legislation came into force—as is appropriate for the alternative Prime Minister at any point in time. 
It is however important that there is some degree of oversight. I think that in the current constrained fiscal environment the committee will want to be very adequately assured that any requests for additional funding by the committees are necessary but there is no question that the scope of New Zealand’s security interests has widened significantly over the years not least because there is significantly increased activity in terms of what passes through foreign embassies and high commissions within New Zealand and those matters have to be kept under some kind of scrutiny to make sure we know what is going on in that regard. 
With that I am very happy on behalf of Labour to support this motion and to wish the members of the committee the same long happy and enjoyable meetings that I had when I was a member of the committee over recent years.
[Volume:652;Page:1861] 
Hon Tariana Turia and Hon Rodney Hide nominated by the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(c) of the Act; and
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders—Sessional Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders—Sessional Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:652;Page:1861] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: I move  
That under section 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee:
Barker Rick: Speaker’s Statements — Call—Members Seeking 
Barker Rick: Speaker’s Statements — Call—Members Seeking 
[Volume:652;Page:1861] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next item of business I just remind new members that the kawa of this House is that when members want to speak they call. The Speaker does not know whether a person is standing up to go out to the toilet to go and get a cup of tea or to do something else so would members please call so that Speaker knows who wishes to speak. That is the kawa of the House.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1847] 
12.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How much have the Ministry for the Environment’s greenhouse gases declined since the introduction of the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The previous Government committed $10.4 million to the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme of which the Ministry for the Environment was the lead agency. Emissions from the ministry though have increased from 656 tonnes to 766 tonnes since the programme was launched by the previous Government. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Does the Minister view the programme as good value for money? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Carbon Neutral Public Service programme was a “touchy-feely” PC programme that was a total waste of public money. All it aimed to do was to hide the awful record that the previous Government had of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why is the Minister not gravely concerned about cutting the independent environmental advice available to the Government given that the Government has just contracted out a cost-benefit analysis on the emissions trading scheme to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research an analysis that major emitters including Solid Energy funded last year and that reached the astonishing conclusion that taxpayers rather than emitters should bear the cost of New Zealand’s emissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am not sure what that question had to do with the previous Government’s proud programme of a carbon-neutral Public Service but I make the following point: the cost of that scheme worked out at over $2400 per tonne of carbon emission when under any logical basis and in the Crown accounts carbon is valued at about $20 per tonne. That simply reinforces the waste of money and the poor programmes of the previous administration. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What will happen to the $10 million that was budgeted for the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That money has been reprioritised through the Budget process to areas of real value to New Zealanders like home insulation programmes clean heating programmes and programmes to improve water quality because this Government is about making a practical difference and investing in front-line services that really matter.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1846] 
11.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Can she explain what she meant by her comment to the House on 4 March 2009: “Would you like Dame Kiri Te Kanawa to be on the minimum wage?”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I made that statement to illustrate the absurdity of Darien Fenton’s considering all musicians to be vulnerable workers for the purposes of her member’s bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister not understand that the minimum wage is a floor and not compulsory? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think she meant— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on minimum wages for independent contractors? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a report arguing that “contractors should be regulated by commercial not industrial law. … unions should not be able to interfere in commercial arrangements involving contractors”. That report came from the Deputy Prime Minister of the Australian Labor Government Julia Gillard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please show some courtesy; their colleague is trying to ask a supplementary. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You should see us in caucus Mr Speaker. 
Hon Member 
: Must have been kind to him! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What does one do! The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she not understand that the minimum wage is a floor and not compulsory? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that the minimum wage is the minimum wage under the minimum wage legislation.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1846] 
10.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is New Zealand’s balance of payments position and what implications does this have for the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The current account deficit has been at or above 8 percent of GDP since 2005. The cumulative deficit—that is the increase in New Zealand’s net foreign liabilities over the 3 years to September 2008—was more than $44 billion. This is testimony to how poorly the foundation for future prosperity has been laid and despite the previous Government’s rhetoric about trying to control the balance of payments we have ended up with it at record levels. 
Chris Tremain 
: What were the growth rates of both exports and imports over the past 5 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the 5 years to September 2008—the latest period available—export volumes grew by only 1.6 percent per annum. By contrast import volumes ballooned growing by 5.2 percent per annum over the same period. Clearly this kind of economic management is unsustainable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the Government gut KiwiSaver against Treasury advice when the savings gap is a principal contributor to the current account deficit; and is the importance of savings not even greater when the recession means it is harder for Governments to run Budget surpluses to partially offset household and business dissaving? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Government left New Zealand with twin chronic deficits—a chronic fiscal deficit and a chronic balance of payments deficit. It actually makes no sense to try to fix the balance of payments deficit by blowing out the fiscal deficit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice because the Minister is on the public record as having told the Finance and Expenditure Committee of this House that he accepts that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the order the member is seeking to progress? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I am just getting to that. There is an apparent contradiction— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The member’s point of order must relate to the order of this House. 
Chris Tremain 
: What would be the consequences if these balance of payments trends were to continue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think anyone can see that the consequences are unsustainable. No country can prosper for long with imports growing at almost three times the rate of exports. This signals that the New Zealand economy will be going through a substantial adjustment and to ignore that would amount to living on borrowed time. This Government is determined to face up to these realities.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1845] 
9.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy to shift resources to front-line public services; if so how is the policy being implemented? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes; chief executives of Government departments are required to take note of the Government’s policy in this area and where possible they will shift resources to improve the delivery of front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why in light of that answer is the Government reviewing the future of field staff for District Courts and of fine collections staff and why has that plan been hidden from the public? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! How did he find out about it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Obviously that plan cannot be hidden from the public if that member is aware of it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why is it the Government’s policy to shift resources to front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In the deteriorating economic environment the New Zealand Government expects the State services to play their part in providing services that meet New Zealanders’ needs. We want to see people and funding move into areas that will deliver best value for money and the improvement of front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister think that actions such as cutting front-line service jobs at the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry for the Environment and the proposed job cuts at the Ministry of Social Development and the National Library will meet the Government’s Job Summit goals of saving and creating jobs or are public servants second-class citizens for this Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We think that New Zealanders would rather have their money that is allocated for the environment for example go into front-line services like insulating homes— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You cancelled that programme! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —just wait I say to members opposite. We think taxpayers would much rather have their money that is allocated for the environment go into front-line services to insulate homes invest in clean heating and clean up streams rather than into politically correct programmes like a carbon-neutral Public Service. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Ministry of Justice document entitled “Terms of Reference: Operations Structure Review” which outlines a review of the district courts department regional management structure the collections department field management structure and the provision of support services in the national office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that report being tabled? There appears to be no objection to that document being tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1844] 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on elective surgery and what do these show? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports involving elective surgery. The reports confirm that the number of patients receiving elective surgery actually fell in real terms from 2001 to 2007-08. This means waiting lists would have grown significantly if the then Government had not culled thousands of patients from the waiting lists and made it harder to get surgery. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What do these reports say about the amount of elective general surgery provided to New Zealand patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: General surgery was one of the specialties that saw the greatest cuts to patient services. Despite a doubling of the health budget in the last 9 years the number of patients who received elective general surgery annually actually fell by seven. So the health budget doubled and fewer people got elective general surgery. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What further services is the Minister prepared to let district health boards cut as a direct result of his letter of expectation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government stands for improving front-line services to patients. I fully expect that there will be some programmes in the health services that will be reduced or removed so that services can go into patients’ front-line care. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can access to elective surgery have got worse in so many specialties when the health budget nearly doubled and what can be done to improve access? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is very difficult to explain how the health budget could nearly double from $6 billion to $12 billion yet there is an actual reduction in the number of New Zealanders getting vitally needed general surgery. I have to leave that explanation to members opposite.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1840] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that the Government is now able in any circumstances to prevent a Minister from answering a question specifically related to his or her portfolio area? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not at all. The honourable member is a good member and she is perfectly capable of framing a question within the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs. She is perfectly capable of framing a question that lies within the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs. This question does not. I invite her to ask her question.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1840] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question specifically asks about the negative impacts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. She is now questioning my ruling. This one is very clear. Whereas in the previous case I accepted that it was a more difficult issue this one is very clear. I invite the member to ask her question.