edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hide Rodney: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10026] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Just to answer the question of the Hon Ruth Dyson and to settle her concerns and those of her constituents I say that the long-term council community plan that has been released stays in place and the consultation continues. It is exactly as set out.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:10037] 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he think that his discussion document on the stocktake of schedule 4 provides sufficient information to New Zealanders to be fully informed about the issue given the statement made on his behalf after the release of the document that “the information about the value of New Zealand’s mineral resources is not well known”; if so why? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes; the stocktake is a carefully considered document and it contains a great deal of useful information. In his question the member quotes out of context a previous reply in this House concerning the further scientific investigation of the mineral potential of some areas as signalled in the discussion paper. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How can New Zealanders be confident about the analysis of the Minister’s proposals when he himself has said that the value of minerals is not well known and the figures in the discussion document have been widely criticised as being made up misleading wildly optimistic and nothing more than desktop studies? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The point is that one can always obtain better and better information depending on one’s access to methodology. The paper was perfectly adequate to enable New Zealanders to have a good discussion about the issue. Of course as techniques improve further information and ways of obtaining that information will become available. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is he not concerned that Parliament’s independent environmental adviser Dr Jan Wright has said that the consultation period available is “insufficient” given public confusion; if not will he be issuing further and better information to ensure that New Zealanders are properly informed? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why were no new studies undertaken on the value of minerals in New Zealand for the review of schedule 4; and instead of presenting New Zealanders with made-up misleading and wildly optimistic figures would it not have been wiser to conduct a proper evaluation of the relevant conservation cultural tourism and mineral values before trying to force his ideas on the New Zealand public? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister is not trying to force his ideas on anyone; he is presenting a consultation paper so there can be sensible consultation. It is just that. I think the Labour Opposition is treating this Government by its own standards. When we have consultation we mean just that.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 22 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:10033] 
6. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I stand by 99.98 percent of them. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Which of his statements does he stand by: the one that national standards are dangerous for Maori; the one that national standards are OK; the one where he told his staff kura kaupapa Maori did not believe in national standards and neither did he and that he was fundamentally opposed to them; or the one where he said he was again comfortable with them but was still worried about league tables? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Those are the 0.02 percent! I stand by all those statements which were made at different times. Initially when I had no documentation I was scared of the league tables; as I got information and consultation I moved to support them. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What has he learnt since he stated he was opposed to national standards that has caused him to now find them acceptable? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: My main fear was the intrusion on the tino rangatiratanga of each kura kaupapa Maori because kura kaupapa Maori not only have to teach education; they have to teach two languages as well. So it is very local. As we developed a consultation process and iwi the schools and the families were allowed input I was satisfied to let it go. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Can he confirm that he is concerned only about Maori students in kura kaupapa Maori and not the 141000 other Maori students in mainstream schools and that he is quite comfortable leaving them and their parents to deal with the implementation of national standards which he himself called dangerous? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I can confirm that I care not only for every Maori student but for every Pakeha student every Indian student and every Chinese student—every student in school. But I have a particular responsibility in these matters for kura kaupapa Maori children. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What was the detail of the assurance he was given by the Prime Minister in relation to the publication of league tables? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I cannot remember the details of it. I still oppose league tables being published by for example the media after their own private investigations but I understand that the Government has no intention of publishing league tables.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10022] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
21ACommission to hold public meetings 
The Commissioners must hold a public meeting no less than once every 3 months to hear issues from the public and to answer for any decisions made. 
21BCommission to establish consultation group 
(1)The Commission shall establish a consultation group for each ward within the Canterbury region. 
(2)The purpose of consultation groups established under subsection (1) is to— 
(a)advise the Commissioner in relation to decisions affecting their community; and 
(b)represent the views of their community; and 
(c)enable wider community participation in the decisions of the Commission. 
(3)Membership of each consultation group will be determined by the Commission in consultation with the respective community. 
(4)Each consultation group will have no fewer than 4 members. 
(5)ECan must provide adequate resources to each consultation group to enable it to perform its democratic and representative functions. 
(6)In this section “ward” has the meaning given to it by the Local Electoral Act 2001. 
21CApplication of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
For the avoidance of doubt the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the Commissioners. 
21DFinal report 
(1)No more than 6 months after the resumption day the Commissioners must prepare a report on changes to the management of fresh water in the Canterbury region and changes to fresh water quality and use in the Canterbury region during their term in office. 
(2)The report must be laid on the table of Parliament.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10022] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
18Commissioner’s remuneration same as councillor’s remuneration 
A commissioner is entitled to be paid the same remuneration by way of salary fees and allowances as those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:10033] 
5. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes is the Government making to per-passenger aviation security charges? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Beginning tomorrow the aviation security charge paid by airlines will be reduced by $5 from $15 to $10 per departing international passenger. The charge for domestic travellers will also drop from $4.66 to $4.35 including GST. This Government is always on the lookout to reduce costs wherever possible and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so with aviation security charges. I hope and expect that the airlines will pass most of this reduction on to their passengers. 
David Bennett 
: How was the Government able to reduce these levies? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Aviation Security Service has accumulated a very significant surplus since the last increase in levies in 2007. The surplus is about $35 million from international security charges and $6.5 million from domestic charges. Although some level of surplus is necessary to buffer against fluctuations in passenger volumes and unforeseen requirements the current level of surplus is an unfair imposition on airlines and the travelling public.
Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10028] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I begin my comments on Part 3 with my usual statement which I am getting sick of making. The Government’s decision not to include the regulatory impact statement in bills that are tabled in this House makes for very poor-quality debates because we have to go and find the regulatory impact statement which is not in the bill itself in order to address some of the concerns that the regulatory impact statement might contain. I am glad that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for Regulatory Reform because I think that was a bad decision and I really want his Government to think about overturning it. 
The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is a very good example of why we need the regulatory impact statement in front of us because the regulatory impact statement states: “There are significant risks associated with the Review Group’s recommendation to temporarily suspend planned triennial elections for regional councillors (scheduled for October 2010) and to transfer the functions and responsibilities of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) elected councillors to government-appointed commissioners”— 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10096] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Firstly in the spirit of the House I congratulate the Minister the Hon Jonathan Coleman and his wife on the birth of the latest asset to their family their child. I am sure we all join in congratulating them. It is a wonderful moment.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
21ACommissioners to give effect to Canterbury Water Management Strategy 
The Commissioners must exercise the functions responsibilities duties and powers prescribed in section 20 in a manner consistent with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10111] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I would not want honourable members to think I have an unhealthy obsession with the machinery provisions of bills but I thought Mr Cosgrove made a very helpful contribution. He identified exactly what the problem was in the legislation which is what happens perhaps when we have overly prescriptive provisions in transitional arrangements or commencement clauses. 
One of the issues I will look at from a legislative point of view—and I am getting away from the particular bill before the Committee—is whether things can be streamlined because quite frankly it is not overly satisfactory that we have had to deal with this matter in this way. So from the point of view of an Attorney-General with responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel Office I tell members that I will talk to a few people to make sure that it does not happen again.
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10018] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call special election 
The Commission must call an election for ECan under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to occur before 30 March 2011.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call election when work complete 
Once all proposed regional policy statement or plans (as defined in section 61) have been decided the Commissioners must call an election under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10020] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10072] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 14 agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (a): 
“(aa) environmental protection; and”; 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (b): 
“(bb) integrated public transport planning; and”; and 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (c): 
“(cc) sustainable development; and”.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
14 Minister must appoint all existing councillors as commissioners 
The responsible Minister must appoint all those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors as commissioners.
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10016] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10003] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to make only a very brief contribution on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill but I was very taken aback by the words of wisdom from Sue Kedgley who has just resumed her seat. She said that this bill is so outrageous that it makes legal what would otherwise be illegal. Well I have to advise the member that actually every single bill this Parliament passes is intended to make legal what would otherwise be illegal. I advise the member that that is the very business of this Parliament. Her words of outrage saying that things would be illegal if we did not pass this bill were quite an extraordinary contribution. 
The second point I challenge the member on is her comment that the whole of the Government’s agenda is about Environment Canterbury’s stopping big projects in Canterbury from happening. Well I ask the member which big projects she is talking about and what is stopping them. The truth is that Environment Canterbury has no plans for water. Eighteen years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have a resource management plan for water in Canterbury. I ask members on both sides of the Chamber regardless of whether they come from a development perspective or an environmental perspective how the interests of New Zealand are served by not having a plan. I ask whether it is really the position of the Green Party and members opposite that we do not need a plan for water in Canterbury. 
I make absolutely no apologies nor do my Government colleagues and the parties that support us for saying that the issue of water in Canterbury is critical. We need to put a plan in place. The regional council has had 18 years and it has not done it. It is time for the Government to take a lead and that is why we have this bill.
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9997] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I would like it to be understood that I for one had a few points left pertaining specifically to Part 1. I was going through it clause by clause and I had a little bit left that I wanted to put into the debate. Mr Chairperson I ask your indulgence that either we return to Part 1 or in the debate on Part 2 I am free to return to one or two clauses in Part 1 to register my points.
Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9991] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I think that the speech that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment has just given confirms that this is not about caring for Canterbury’s water. It is not about caring for our natural resources looking to the future or having a democratic base for our decision making in respect of our environmental concerns. It is all about politics.
Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9997] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to that member. I noted that in his presentation to the Committee he focused specifically on the bill clause by clause and I was going to commend him for being one of the few speakers who did that and extrapolated wider points. I thought that was very good. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that yes he is correct; generally there is latitude and a wider brief is given when a bill has not been referred to a select committee. The point I would make to him in rebuttal is that we were debating Part 1 which is a very technical part. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The purpose. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The purpose yes. I have read the purpose clause and a lot of it is very technical. Part 2 is quite substantial and I expect the Chair to be more cognisant of the fact that there is a wider range of issues on that point. I also make the point that speakers referred to Part 3 very often; that was a substantial part of the debate. Had they done so in passing there would have been no problem. I just make the point that we have had a little dispute about the hours but we are going to continue the discussion and we will now focus on Part 2. No doubt there will be a focused and wide-ranging debate as people want within that context with some generosity on the Chair’s part.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: New Part 4 proposed by the Hon Ruth Dyson is ruled out of order because the subject matter it contains relates to Part 2 and should have been proposed at the time the Committee was considering Part 2.
Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9996] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to Part 2 but before we take any bidders on it I advise the Committee that we had 2 hours of debate on the previous part and many of the speeches went well outside of what would normally be acceptable in a Committee stage speech. Many of them were second reading speeches. We have ranged far and wide. The Chair is prepared to be quite liberal about that because the point has been made that the bill has not been to a select committee. But members should focus their attention on the fact that this is the Committee stage we are dealing with the nuts and bolts and the debate is on Part 2 not Part 3.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9996] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9996] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9994] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Mr Chair I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is That the question be now put. 
Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it. Clerk would you please conduct a party vote. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: An hour and a half on a Part that has never been to a select committee and was introduced under urgency. An hour and a half—that’s ridiculous. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair I seek your guidance in reminding the member opposite that the vote is held in silence. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In the spirit of collegiality I give advice to the junior whip that when her member moves a closure motion she should simply put those words. We can be petty and pedantic if she likes. I did not pull the member up on it because she moved it and it was clear what her intention was but it was not within the Standing Orders. If the junior whip wants to behave in that way we can go toe for toe; otherwise we can just have the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think that is a draw. I will ask the Clerk to continue the vote in silence—well not the Clerk. Members will hear the call and so on in silence.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9995] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause 1(c) “except sections 52 to 55 and 60”; and 
to omit from subclause 1(d) “except sections 64 to 69”.
Henare Tau: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9993] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9996] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You anticipated part of my point of order which was that we spent roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes on Part 1 25 minutes of which were taken up by the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment—which is great because we want to be engaging with him on the issue. The point I make about that is that the Minister is intimately involved in this legislation. He wrote it he has seen it he has had a chance to take it through Cabinet processes and he has had the benefit of his officials’ advice on it. The problem that the Opposition has is that we have not had that luxury of having seen the bill beforehand. The bill was introduced under urgency. Mr Chairperson your reference to it not having gone to a select committee is true; there has been no chance for public submissions. But the fact that it was introduced under urgency means that we did not get a chance even to read it before we started to debate it. There are Speakers’ rulings that give members a little more leeway when they are debating a bill part by part under urgency in the Committee of the whole House and there has not been the chance for them to do research and prepare for the debate in the way that they might ordinarily have expected to do. 
I guess my two points are that one the reason that we opposed closure was that we did not feel that there had been enough time for us to debate Part 1 and the Minister has been contributing a lot and that of course extended the time of the debate. By definition if a debate goes for a length of time the Minister’s contributing will reduce the amount of time available to the Opposition to speak on a bill that was sight unseen until the debate started. The second point is about members’ being given leeway for the fact that they have not been briefed on the legislation and are not in a position to restrict every single comment they want to make to a particular clause in a part. Members are trying their best to do that but I think that point has to be taken into account in the absence of a select committee process and in the absence of the bill being laid on the Table for 3 days beforehand. Mr Chairperson had that happened had that process been followed you would be absolutely correct in asserting that members should follow to the letter the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in this respect but that is not able to happen because the bill was dropped on Opposition members. We are trying to construct our arguments as best we are able given the limited amount of time we have had.
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10127] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading debate on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I must acknowledge the experience that is in the Primary Production Committee both the chair and the previous chair and also other people within the agricultural industry. The point I want to make—and I will not take too long a call because I think the matter has been canvassed pretty well—is that we listened to submissions and the submitters were a number of the processors who take milk that is made available under regulation and legislation. There are 600 million litres available. There are 21 processors that take milk. Out of those 13 take 4 million litres or less so that is quite a few. 
The argument from the submissions really came down to whether there was justification for the principle of a Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per milksolids. It is clear that the evidence came down on the favourable side—that that should be the way it is run. The premium on the farm-gate price is because of the seasonality of milk production. It was important to square up those shoulders. There is a mechanism for an auction system in this bill and on that basis we look forward to that being progressed at an appropriate time. No doubt the Minister of Agriculture was given sound advice that there needed to be more work done on that. We look forward to that being progressed and this bill makes that provision. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill to examine some of the clauses that have been introduced. I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
Goudie Sandra: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10129] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call and concur with my colleague across the House Ashraf Choudhary that Shane Ardern is an excellent chair of the Primary Production Committee. We all work so well together because we all fully understand the importance of agriculture and that it is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. 
Although the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act is meeting most of its intended purposes the 2008 review of regulations found that the regulated price formula was flawed. This formula requires Fonterra to sell raw milk at a lower price than it pays farmers for the supply of raw milk. That was never the intention of the regulations and we needed to change it. The bill ensures that the price paid by independent processors for raw milk is the average price that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of the milk and includes the additional cost to Fonterra of supplying a uniform supply profile to independent processors across the season. I hope members all understood that. This price ensures that Fonterra is fairly compensated for supplying the raw milk. I wanted to take just a short call on that.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12(2)(c); 
to omit from clause 12(3)(a) “(including the terms of reference for the commissioners)”; 
to omit clause 13; 
to omit clause 20(b); and 
to omit clause 20(d).
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:10043] 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Which employer and employee groups has the Government specifically excluded from the 90-day trial period as introduced by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As set out in section 67A of the Employment Relations Act employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. I also note that trial periods are entered into only by agreement from both parties. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she consider excluding vulnerable groups from the 90-day trial period such as the solo parents and sickness beneficiaries that her Government intends forcing into work for as little as $1 an hour? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As the member knows there is a discussion paper in relation to personal grievances which includes the trial period of course. The submissions on that paper will close in 1 hour and 55 minutes so she still has time to make a submission. We will listen to those submissions and consider the feedback before making any decisions. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she then consider excluding any person who has ended up on the unemployment benefit as a result of the 90-day trial period from further 90-day trial periods if and when they are lucky enough to find work? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Under section 67A of the Employment Relations Act employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. Trial periods are by agreement. 
Darien Fenton 
: Considering the massive increase in the number of people on benefits since the 90-day fire-at-will legislation was passed does she now accept that her claim that it will “provide real opportunities for people at the margins of the labour market” was wrong and that it does the opposite by making it easier for employers to discriminate against those workers by using them then discarding them within 90 days with no risk of a grievance claim? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It has been 13 months since the 90-day trial period for small businesses was introduced and in that time we have had very positive feedback from both employers and employees on the use of trial periods.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted.
Norman Russel William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9975] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 When the debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night we were dealing under urgency with the current bill whereby the Government the ACT Party and the Maori Party will vote to abolish democratically elected regional councillors. We were considering Part 1 of that bill which includes the purpose clause clause 3. The purpose of this bill is very clear and the Prime Minister stated it in his opening speech to Parliament in February. The Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year. That was the first step. 
The second step was that Wyatt Creech was appointed to conduct a review of Environment Canterbury. At the time he was a director of Open Country Cheese a dairy company with multiple convictions for dirty dairying. Someone from the dairy industry was appointed to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry—that is of Environment Canterbury. That was step two. Step two was to appoint the industry to do a review of the regulator of the industry. Unsurprisingly the Creech report came out saying that we should get rid of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors. One of the criticisms of course was that Environment Canterbury’s councillors were paying too much attention to science and that was why they needed to go. The report said that they were “science-led” rather than “science-informed”. 
The third step is this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil the final stage in the Government’s grand plan which is to get rid of the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury because they are getting in the way of irrigation in the Canterbury region. After years of inaction by the regional council it was finally starting to stand up to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies and that is why they got into trouble with the National Government.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10060] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit Subpart 3.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9995] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6AIndependent review 
(1)The Minister shall immediately appoint a review authority to review consider and report on the performance of ECan in respect of its management of fresh water in the Canterbury region. 
(2)The review authority shall be appointed by notice in the  
Gazette 
 and a copy of that notice shall be sent to ECan. 
(3)Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies with any necessary modifications to the review authority and the review. 
(4)In addition to any remedies in Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister of Local Government may on the recommendation of the review authority issue an Order in Council bringing Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act into force.
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9966] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your predecessor the Deputy Speaker asked me to withdraw a name I used for a colleague across the House which I did. In order to be consistent—as my remark was far more benign than the rudeness of the member Aaron Gilmore in his last comments—I invite you to take some action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: As I recall the comment it was something about a “raucous banshee”. I would have thought it was not a particularly offensive term. It is very graphic and colourful; it is a term that is not often heard. But I would not say it is necessarily offensive. I often like to have a bit of colour so I will not take any offence.
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9932] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Brendon Burns and Labour know in their heart of hearts that we are doing the right thing. Do members know why? It is because they voted for the urgency motion. I thank Labour members for their early support of this bill. 
This Government is not afraid to confront problems and move to fix them. I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Rodney Hide who recognised that Environment Canterbury was failing and who have resolved to do something about it. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill seeks to address the very real problems identified in the review of the performance of Environment Canterbury. 
The review confirmed the worst fear of many people living in the area—the fear that Environment Canterbury was failing. It is politically technically and woefully deficient in policy areas and most important to me it is failing miserably in respect of water management. To say that local water users have been dismayed at the performance of Environment Canterbury in respect of its water management is to understate the case. Dealing with Environment Canterbury whether by recreational users fishermen or irrigators has been uncertain and adversarial and dealings can stretch on for years and years leading to enormous costs. This bill will address those issues. 
Canterbury urgently needs a regional water plan and this bill has given top priority to its development. Labour had 9 years of complete mismanagement of water issues and produced nothing except its Water Programme of Action or I should say its water programme of inaction. This Government plans to build on the excellent work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study which enjoys wide support amongst the ten Canterbury mayors and all water interest groups. 
Already the National Government has achieved more in the development of water policy than Labour did in its entire term of office. Shame on Labour! By appointing commissioners with additional powers under this legislation the Government will address these urgent problems with the management of water. The people of Canterbury deserve better from their regional council and with the passing of this bill they will get it. 
I will leave members with a quote from former environment Minister Trevor Mallard who said on 27 February: “everyone knew there was a problem there. But it was quite late in the term and in a time where there was not the ability to put in the group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done and then deal with the results.” I commend this bill to the House.