edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14068] 
12. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: When he said in the House yesterday that the Auckland Transition Agency “ran a tender to deliver an enterprise resource planning system” was he referring to merely the $14.3 million contract for the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning system or was he referring to the full contract of $53.8 million to deliver the Enterprise Resource Planning system? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The total cost of the Enterprise Resource Planning system is budgeted to be $62.3 million. That information was made public in May. A limited tender was run for the delivery of the Enterprise Resource Planning system. This includes meeting the entire cost of implementing the system. The total budgeted cost of $62.3 million covers both the pre and post - 1 November 2010 costs. 
Phil Twyford 
: How can he say that when the Auckland Transition Agency’s own discussion document clearly states that the company SAP was awarded the contract on the basis of an internal evaluation and no competitive tender? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Because as the member knows SAP has been delivering services in Auckland. It has been in discussion with the Auckland Transition Agency. There was a discussion with nine companies and four were selected to combine to deliver the service and that is what has happened. 
Phil Twyford 
: How will Auckland ratepayers ever know that they are getting value for money from the Enterprise Resource Planning system when they were denied an open tender process which would have saved them millions of dollars? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: They will know when they contact the council and get the very efficient service that they will get post - 1 November. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does he reconcile the failure to tender the full $53 million contract for the Auckland super-city with his statement that in setting up the Auckland Council “The emphasis throughout has been on ensuring no undue burden is placed on the ratepayers of Auckland.”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Easily. The councils currently spend $90 million a year on services. There were always going to be some extra costs in putting a combined network across the council. That is costing $124 million as opposed to $90 million. The actual extra cost is minimal compared with the service that people will get. I have every faith that the Auckland Transition Agency and particularly the new council will deliver a grand service for the people of Auckland.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14070] 
1. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has received 279 submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and numerous other form and letter submissions. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can he confirm that every submission that includes individual comments which includes over 3000 of the submissions that he refers to as “form submissions” will be treated as a unique submission that requires consideration by the select committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would imagine that the way the select committee considers submissions is a matter for the select committee not for the chair of the select committee. Therefore I cannot accept that question as being within order.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14069] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I wonder then whether the shadow Leader of the House might be able to give an indication as to when a Labour question will be traded back to Mr Chris Carter on his return. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Annette King whether she has quite finished. 
Hon Annette King 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I should not have to remind her that if she has not finished the Speaker might ask her to leave the Chamber. But I will accept her peace signal. Members well know that there is a practice whereby parties can swap questions. It happens all the time. There is no need for them to be returned or anything like that. It is a matter between the parties and does not involve the Speaker although I fully accept the member’s desire to have that matter clarified. It is a matter for the parties and I accept the advice of the parties where questions have been swapped.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14070] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a discussion paper from the Auckland Transition Agency. It details the fact that no tender was given for a $53 million information technology project. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It appears there is objection.
Smith Lockwood: Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
Smith Lockwood: Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 155 to 158 on the application of Councillor Colleen Brown relating to a reference made by the Hon George Hawkins on 8 September 2010.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could inform us of which stages he intends to take the Electricity Industry Bill through. I know there are aspects of that bill where a regime comes into force during the adjournment of the House I think and I ask whether it is the intention to go through to the third reading of that bill. Also we started a bill last week and we had thought we would make some good progress on it this week maybe even getting through to its third reading. But for reasons unknown to the Opposition and maybe the Government could shed light on this it seems that the Identity Information Confirmation Bill has met a rather curious stall. If he could explain to us the reason for that we would be well and truly honoured.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14062] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister of Finance is present in the Chamber on the grounds that the material is both technical and important to the status of South Canterbury Finance under the deposit guarantee scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:14104] 
Sittings of the House 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As the House has made such good progress today I seek leave for the House to rise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14095] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill 2010. This bill enables the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Aviation Security Service and the New Zealand Customs Service to recover costs associated with providing passenger processing services at new and restarting airports. Members on this side of the House think that is a wonderful thing. It is good to see that the House is pretty much in unanimous support of the bill. It is a wonderful bill and I look forward to its passage through the House.
Personal Explanations — Careless Driving—Convictions 
Personal Explanations — Careless Driving—Convictions 
[Volume:666;Page:14090] 
Personal Explanations 
Careless Driving—Convictions 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in regard to my driving record. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When I spoke of my own driving record in my first reading speech on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I was operating from memory. Subsequent to that speech I received a media inquiry as to the penalty I received. I reviewed my record from the Ministry of Justice. In fact I have two convictions not one for careless driving within a 2-year period in 1988 and 1989.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Thursday 16 September 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to progressing the Electricity Industry Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could inform us of which stages he intends to take the Electricity Industry Bill through. I know there are aspects of that bill where a regime comes into force during the adjournment of the House I think and I ask whether it is the intention to go through to the third reading of that bill. Also we started a bill last week and we had thought we would make some good progress on it this week maybe even getting through to its third reading. But for reasons unknown to the Opposition and maybe the Government could shed light on this it seems that the Identity Information Confirmation Bill has met a rather curious stall. If he could explain to us the reason for that we would be well and truly honoured. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 We did not see that one coming! In respect of the second matter my experience is that we will get on to it as these matters are best dealt with quickly. In respect of the first part of the member’s question I am sure that once the Leader of the House returns from Christchurch he will be in a position to give the member a clearer indication of how much progress will be made on the Electricity Industry Bill. But he can be assured that some progress will be made.
Coleman Jonathan: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14099] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Primary Production Committee 
 consider the  
Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14058] 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent announcements have been made regarding digital switch-over? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Earlier today the Government announced that New Zealand will complete the switch-over to digital television by 2013. Our election promise was to achieve digital switch-over by 2015 at the latest. With 70 percent of New Zealand households now watching digital television we believe that it is time to make a formal announcement of the digital switch-over date so that the public broadcasters retailers and installers can make preparations for a seamless transition to the digital environment. 
David Bennett 
: Why has the Government chosen 2013 as the completion date for digital switch-over? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Digital television gives the viewer the benefit of enhanced reception better picture quality and more channels. The switch to digital television will free up radio spectrum which will be ideal for fourth-generation mobile technologies. This will provide New Zealanders with access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. Completing digital switch-over by 2013 will bring forward the economic benefits for New Zealand which are estimated to be between $1.1 billion and $2.4 billion over the next 20 years. 
Chris Tremain 
: Which regions will be the first to complete the switch to digital television? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The first regions to complete the switch to digital television will be Hawke’s Bay and the West Coast in September 2012. They will be followed by the rest of the South Island in April 2013 and the lower North Island and Gisborne in September 2013. The rest of the North Island will be completed in November 2013. A comprehensive communications campaign will be launched later this year to provide additional information and support about digital switch-over. The Government is allocating $37 million over 4 years to support a smooth transition to digital television. 
Chris Tremain 
: What will the old analog spectrum be used for? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Digital television technology makes more efficient use of radio spectrum than analog technology does. Switching to it will free up a large amount of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for new uses. We expect that one of the principal uses of the spectrum will be for fourth-generation mobile technologies which will give New Zealanders access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. This will allow New Zealand to keep pace with international developments in radio communications and information technology and will be crucial if New Zealand is to increase productivity and enhance economic growth. Today’s announcement supports the Government’s economic growth agenda and is great news for the country.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 We did not see that one coming! In respect of the second matter my experience is that we will get on to it as these matters are best dealt with quickly. In respect of the first part of the member’s question I am sure that once the Leader of the House returns from Christchurch he will be in a position to give the member a clearer indication of how much progress will be made on the Electricity Industry Bill. But he can be assured that some progress will be made.
Power Simon: Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
Power Simon: Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to progressing the Electricity Industry Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Peachey Allan: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14089] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate on the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do not want to spend too long on the bill but I would like to address a few remarks to those 15-year-olds out there who are obviously going to be disappointed that they will be held back a year before they can get their driver’s licence. I would ask them to understand that it has been estimated that moving the age up just one year to 16 years will save at least four lives a year and will prevent 25 serious injuries and 148 minor injuries a year. That is significant. It is also estimated that in social-cost terms there will be a saving of about $38 million. 
I ask those young people to understand that the world has changed enormously since I got my driver’s licence very shortly after my 15th birthday 45 years ago but the driving age has not been adjusted accordingly. When I went for my test the first thing you did was ring up the local traffic cop said you wanted to take your licence test and they gave you a time. You showed up you hopped in the car and the first thing you did was wind down the driver’s window. This was so that when you came to do the right-turn test you could stick your arm out the window to indicate that you were changing direction or if you were stopping to stick your arm out and give the “stop” sign. If you were turning left you stuck your hand in the front of the windscreen to indicate to oncoming traffic that you were going left. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not— 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I should have learnt from your reprimanding of my colleague the previous speaker David Shearer and you are quite right. 
So I put my hand across the front of the windscreen and indicated. If the youngster was unlucky he or she was required to stop on a slight slope and show the ability to start again without rolling back. The driver went around the block the traffic cop said “Yes son you’re fine.” and in 10 minutes one had his or her licence. There was much less traffic on the road than there is now. Cars were far less powerful. I do not think I knew 15-year-olds who had the use of their own car. It was a matter of massive negotiation with one’s parents. There was certainly no suggestion that one would drive to school. A lot of lawns had to be mowed in order to get the use of the car once a week if one was lucky. I hope that 15-year-olds will appreciate that there is very very good reason for this change being made. I think many of us would think that it is quite long overdue. I am pleased to see it happening. With that I commend the bill to the House and I support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Bill read a first time.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14070] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I need to correct my answer to the supplementary question asked by Chris Hipkins. High-value properties have separate insurance and are covered by the Earthquake Commission. Others are covered by Housing New Zealand disaster insurance on which there is a $10 million excess. That will not come from upgrade and maintenance costs from other areas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that from the honourable Minister.
Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
Responses — Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Responses 
Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 155 to 158 on the application of Councillor Colleen Brown relating to a reference made by the Hon George Hawkins on 8 September 2010. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14064] 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will Cantabrians whose chimneys have been significantly damaged by the recent earthquake be covered by the Earthquake Commission to replace their old log burners or open fires with new efficient heaters? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Yes. The Government thinks it is important for both air quality and future earthquake safety that we replace as many old chimneys as possible with efficient gas heaters pellet heaters clean log burners or heat pumps using Earthquake Commission recovery funds. Christchurch has long had a significant air pollution problem and statistics from all of New Zealand’s major earthquakes—Murchison Napier Inangahua and now Canterbury—show that more deaths and injuries are caused by brick chimneys than by any other cause. This is an opportunity to rebuild a safer and cleaner Christchurch. 
Louise Upston 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the number of chimneys that collapsed due to Canterbury’s earthquake? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The Earthquake Commission reports that 15000 chimneys came down during the Canterbury quake. Also a number of injuries from collapsing chimneys have been reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation. This initiative involving potentially 15000 households at a cost of $7000 per home is an effective investment of up to $100 million in making Christchurch both safer and cleaner.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14067] 
11. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is the Government doing to assist people whose homes are not habitable following the Canterbury earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Housing New Zealand Corporation has been working very well with private sector landlords the community housing sector and the Ministry of Social Development. However we know that a number of people have been living with family and friends and will want some sort of longer-term options as their houses are being rebuilt so we are wanting to increase the housing pool in Canterbury. Today I announced the Housing Emergency Lease Programme. In this programme we will be asking Cantabrians who have a second home—it might be a holiday home a farm cottage or a house that would otherwise be for sale—to see whether they are willing to lease that short term to Housing New Zealand Corporation for 2 3 or 4 months. Housing New Zealand Corporation will carry the lease pay the rent and have a tenancy agreement. This way it manages the tenancy and collects the rent but it guarantees rent to the householder and provides a no-hassle tenancy service. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will funding that is currently budgeted for upgrades or replacements of State houses in other areas be reduced in order to meet the increased demand that is likely to flow out of the Housing New Zealand Corporation projects in the Canterbury region; if so where does he envisage that money coming from? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is fortunate that Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are covered by Earthquake Commission payments just as normal properties are. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge what the Minister has just said but it did not actually address the question that I raised. I asked him whether money would be taken from other regions in order to put it into the Canterbury region. Saying that the Earthquake Commission— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seemed to me the Minister was saying that the Earthquake Commission would cover the cost with regard to Housing New Zealand Corporation properties. That is what I interpreted from what the Minister said. If that is what the Minister is saying then the member cannot litigate it by way of point of order. He can ask further supplementary questions. 
Chris Hipkins 
: But that wasn’t my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member now seems to want to argue with the Speaker which is not a very good idea. But just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding here I believe that the member asked where the cost would come from. What I interpreted from what the Minister said was that it would be covered by the Earthquake Commission so it would not come from any other Housing New Zealand Corporation regions. I might be wrong and if I am wrong then I hope the Minister will point that out to me. But he does not appear to be wishing to.
Goudie Sandra: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14099] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is a great bill and it took a National Government to move it forward. We are delighted to see that happening and we look forward to its successful progress through the select committee. 
Bill read a first time.
Bennett David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14075] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was Darren Hughes the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport. In 2 years of being the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport he has had only one suggestion which was to lower the minimum blood-alcohol level. He has done nothing else in regards to transport in that time and he has provided no leadership in the sector for his party beyond that. The only reason he is doing it is because he is seeking to be populist. He is trying to be another Winston Peters trying to take advantage of a situation when the reality is we need to do that research—research that the previous Labour Government refused to do. When it was in Government when it had the power to do it it did not do it. Now we have to do it so that we can make an informed decision. Labour did not do the research and now we have to do it. Labour members tell us how low the road toll was when they were in Government and that they did not need to make any of these changes. That is the Labour mentality. Yet now they say it is important to make those changes. 
So what has suddenly changed? What has changed in 2 years? All it is is that Darren Hughes is being populist and trying to get his name in the newspaper. He knows there is no publicity for him because he has no vision and no passion for the transport sector. Everybody knows that. He does not care about building up transport and infrastructure. All he is looking for is a populist argument that can get his name before Parliament. That takes away from the real nature of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a bill that is here to provide important avenues to improve road safety for New Zealanders. 
The road safety process that has been undertaken by this Government is huge. We have dealt with drugged drivers which the previous Government failed to do. Now we are looking at the minimum driving age. We are looking at tougher sanctions for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. We are looking at the future of the lawmaking process to make sure we take into account all of the decisions and all of the research available. This is good legislation and shows that the Minister of Transport has a desire to make real progress on transport safety. The  
Safer Journeys: discussion document  
has been the impetus for many of these reforms. They are reforms that National and I believe this Parliament will support because they are in the best interests of New Zealand’s drivers. They are in the best interests of our transport sector. The Government is not going out there just to seek populist comments unlike Labour members who have no vision for transport. That is the reality of the situation.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14065] 
9. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What support is the Corrections Department offering to Canterbury community groups and individuals to help with earthquake recovery? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections has a labour force of around 2400 offenders on community work who are available to help with the earthquake clean-up. The department has set up a special 0800 number for people in Canterbury to call with job requests. The number 0800 COMWRK—that is 0800 266975—can be used by both community groups and individuals who need assistance. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What sort of assistance have community workers in Canterbury be providing so far? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: To date the community workers have mainly been helping civil defence to clear debris and heavily silted areas in Kaiapoi. Today they are working alongside civil defence and the army to clear debris from State housing properties in Christchurch and St Paul’s Church in Kaiapoi. Tomorrow workers will be helping clean up one of the school properties at Kaiapoi which has remained closed since the earthquake. I encourage people who need help to call 0800 COMWRK.
Wagner Nicky: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13968] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill in its third reading. Every Cantabrian who has been through the 7.1 magnitude earthquake has responded magnificently to the state of emergency. Thousands of New Zealanders have volunteered to support emergency services to get our city and our province up and running. They have all been incredibly professional—quickly and quietly getting on with the job. What a fantastic effort! Ten days later the region is close to getting back to normal and all Cantabrians are ready to roll up their sleeves and get on with the process of recovery and reconstruction. 
The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill will allow our region to move seamlessly from the state of emergency to recovery mode and will coordinate the reconstruction and rebuilding of Christchurch City and all the towns all the farms and all the homes across Canterbury. This legislation is powerful. It will empower our can-do Cantabrians to rebuild our society our infrastructure and our future. 
The destruction caused across the Canterbury region is immense. It is so substantial that the recovery will be one of the most significant in New Zealand’s history. It is the job of local government regional government and central government to enable and to lead this reconstruction. This bill will provide the coordination required to prioritise work and to ensure that the redevelopment is well planned and well executed and that we get the best possible result when our work is done. 
The Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned how Cantabrians can now talk “earthquake” and can judge the Richter scale with ease. After every shock we gauge the rating and even in our sleep we can decide whether it is worth waking up for. Minister Paula Bennett tells us that she saw in Christchurch today T-shirts stating “We don’t get out of bed for anything less than a 6”. 
Finally I congratulate Minister Gerry Brownlee and Minister Dr Nick Smith on producing this bill so quickly and effectively and providing a platform for the people of Canterbury to get on with the restoration and reconstruction of our homes our businesses and our society. I think now is the time for us to get going; we are keen to do that. We want to make sure that our city and our region makes the absolute most of every possible opportunity and that we can build an even more colourful more vibrant and more beautiful city and province. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13959] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(c)appoint a recovery co-ordinator to be appointed to carry on the powers of a civil defence controller should that be necessary. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (2): 
(2A)In appointing the persons referred to in section 9(d) the Minister must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of and expertise in relation to the following matters: 
(a)civil defence: 
(b)tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region: 
(c)the Canterbury region and its people: 
(d)public health: 
(e)water resource management: 
(f)heritage architecture: 
(g)small and medium enterprise operations: 
(h)infrastructure. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13958] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission is an organisation for the purposes of Schedule 1 of the Official Information Act 1982. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 9: 
9AApplication of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the recovery commission.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13958] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to add to clause 9 the following paragraph: 
(e)2 Christchurch City councillors by the Christchurch City Council.; and 
to add to clause 14 the following subclause: 
(6)Despite subsection (1) to (5) only the Christchurch City Council can appoint or terminate the appointment of a commissioner appointed under section 9(e).
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13957] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “enactment including (but not limited to)—” and substitute “of the following enactments:”.
Carter John: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
Carter John: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13920] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill be now read a second time 
. It is a proud moment to stand and speak in this debate and to recognise the effort that is being put in by so many people for so many people. As the Minister of Civil Defence I have to say that the civil defence team and all those agencies that worked with it both in Christchurch and here in Wellington were an absolute stand-out. I must also say that the people of Canterbury themselves who were so directly affected have been stoic. The response from people around New Zealand and the way in which they have offered their support and their condolences to the people of Canterbury makes one proud to be a New Zealander. 
That is something we can share in this Parliament. I thank those members who have paid compliments to all of us who have been involved right across both sides of the House. This Parliament shows and has shown that when necessary it can work together as a team of leaders of this country to ensure that the needs of the people are responded to. 
Importantly it shows other countries that we have a society and a structure in place that is world class; indeed it leads the world. The Hon Nick Smith said he heard a comment from a person involved in earthquakes around the world that our nation and our response is to be complimented; it has been way above anything else that that gentleman had been involved with. I am certain that in time to come this country’s response will be studied by many others. 
Of course there was always going to be a phase when the civil defence emergency finished and we moved into the urgency of the rebuild. That is the stage we are now at. This bill allows the people of Canterbury to get on and rebuild their lives. We all know that rebuilding will be hugely challenging for them. We are all well aware how many of them are still distressed and that the aftershocks are causing worry. Many people are still not sleeping well. As Aaron Gilmore said his young child has been affected by this event and will be affected by it along with so many others in Canterbury for days if not months and years to come. It has had a serious impact on the lives of people to the extent that a good number of them are so tired they are not necessarily thinking straight. We need to be there to support them and this bill will do that. 
Again I say that this Parliament can be proud of the people of this nation and this nation can be proud of its people. Certainly we are pleased and proud to be Kiwis. I commend this bill to the House.
Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13947] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a call to make two points in response to the Minister in the chair Gerry Brownlee who has just resumed his seat. One relates to clause 6(3) of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. The Labour Party would prefer to see that clause omitted in its entirety. With respect the Minister’s suggestion that somebody might go to court and suggest that the powers to be exercised in one part of a country should not be exercised in Canterbury and therefore that clause 6(3) is necessary really does not satisfy the question that was originally raised. It would be good if the Minister would reconsider the existence of clause 6(3). 
The other point I make is in reference to the Minister’s undertaking that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission will be subject to appropriate standards of transparency. He said a Supplementary Order Paper on that issue might be coming to the Table or failing that it would be dealt with in the terms of reference of the commission. I point out to the Minister that there is an amendment already on the Table that would make the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act apply to the commission. The amendment is in the name of Kennedy Graham and it is to insert new clause 9A into the bill. The Labour Party intends to support that amendment. It is an appropriate one. The Minister has agreed with the tenor of it and I urge him and his party to vote for it.
Tremain Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13941] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Once a year I have the very good fortune to attend a memorial function in Hawke’s Bay for the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake which occurred some 79 years ago. People attending that function who range in age between 79 and 102 if I recall correctly recount stories of the 1931 earthquake that are remarkably similar to some of the stories we are hearing today about the Canterbury earthquake. The Hawke’s Bay earthquake hit at 10.47 a.m. on Tuesday 3 February 1931. It killed 256 people and absolutely devastated the Hawke’s Bay region. It measured 7.8 on the Richter scale and I guess in modern times it was probably the strongest earthquake we have experienced. There were 525 aftershocks following the Hawke’s Bay earthquake as have occurred in the Canterbury region. 
The interesting thing about the Hawke’s Bay earthquake was that all the buildings in the central areas of Napier and Hastings were levelled. In fact the  
Dominion 
 newspaper of the day said that as a town Napier had been totally wiped off the map. The death toll included 161 people in Napier 93 in Hastings and two in Wairoa. Of course thousands more were injured—400 were seriously injured and ended up in hospital. The fascinating thing about that particular quake was that some 40 square kilometres of the seabed became dry land. Now when we fly into Napier airport over the areas of Pirimai and Marewa we can see all the land that came up as a result of the earthquake. The Hawke’s Bay earthquake was followed by a fire in Napier. Although the earthquake damaged many many buildings in the township it was the ensuing fire that caught a lot more buildings. The entire townscape was pretty much devastated. 
The point I want to make about this legislation tonight in comparison with what we saw in Napier in 1931 is that the recovery effort is in a totally different space. The response to the recovery of services and people being able to get on with their lives is happening far more quickly. I think we will see people getting on with their lives far more quickly and that is absolutely excellent. The rebuilding in the province of Hawke’s Bay took not just years but decades but we will see Canterbury getting back on its feet extremely quickly. I am proud to be standing here tonight to support this enabling legislation to help Canterbury get back on its feet as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Carter John: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13934] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate that rather than debating this bill the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill clause by clause or part by part we have a wide-ranging debate through the Committee stage. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is there to be any restriction on the number of calls per individual? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: And for there to be no limitation on calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Members have heard the leave that is being sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Dean Jacqui: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13934] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I want to make just a brief contribution on the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. I congratulate Ministers Gerry Brownlee and John Carter on the leadership they have shown in bringing us from the point of disaster through now to disaster recovery. I also acknowledge members of Parliament from across the House for their generosity in the time they have given to the people of Canterbury. Those of us who live further away from the earthquake—I live in South Canterbury - North Otago—and who watched it only from a distance with minimal disruption to our lives can only admire the way in which members from across the House have dealt with this and will continue to deal with it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is Oamaru in South Canterbury now? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The member should have listened. I did say “South Canterbury and North Otago”. I could go on to say “Central Otago— 
Hon Member 
: You represent both. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I do indeed represent both. I also represent Central Otago but we digress. 
The purpose of my speech today is to note that one aspect of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is to establish the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission. The commission is going to be established to advise Ministers and to become the conduit between local government the community and the Government. I would like to suggest as my final point that as well as the commissioners three of whom will be the mayors of the various councils—Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council—joined by four others the local MPs will also have an input into the ongoing process of rebuilding for Canterbury. In making that small point I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13899] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill to be introduced and passed through all stages and if required for the completion of that business for the sitting of the House to extend beyond 10 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.