edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6956] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak relatively briefly to this. Again it is to thank officials for the work they have done on the legislation and to congratulate Ministers especially Steven Joyce as he enters the Chamber on their timing in bringing this bill to the Committee in embarrassing times for Melissa Lee and Bill English. I have no doubt whatsoever that Gerry Brownlee was totally ignorant when he put it on the Order Paper but I would not say that the other Cabinet Ministers were. It is a particularly embarrassing time for the Government in New Zealand and for Bill English in particular. Never before have I seen a Minister in place and not suspended while the Auditor-General is conducting this sort of investigation. I can see it. Given the revelation around Melissa Lee last night on TV3—although some of us have known about it for some time—one would have thought that a cautious Leader of the House would have taken the opportunity to defer this legislation. I say thank you and congratulations to Mr Joyce on his promotion. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Mapp Wayne: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6956] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Clauses 1 and 2 set out the bill’s title and commencement provisions for the financial service providers and casinos collectively referred to as the financial entities. The bill anticipates a lead-in time for reporting entities to make sure that they have the measures required by the bill in place before their obligations become law. Because some flexibility is required the commencement provisions relating to important reporting entities’ obligations will be through an Order in Council. The expectation is that at least 2 years will be provided but the Government does intend to consult further with industry on the appropriate lead-in time. 
Certain provisions will come into force immediately following the bill’s Royal assent including the New Zealand Police’s financial intelligence functions and the supervisors’ functions and powers along with the ability to make regulations. This will enable the Government to gear up the regime and allow supervisors to assist reporting entities in the implementation of the responsibilities. 
The provisions relating to the cross-border transportation of cash will come into force 12 months after the bill receives its Royal assent. This aspect of the bill is relatively self-contained and will update and replace the border cash-reporting regime of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996. The commencement provisions of the bill will make sure that the obligations for reporting entities are brought into force within a time frame that is practical for industry and sensitive to implementation costs.
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6947] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am going to make some brief remarks I believe. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not too brief. About four calls. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: OK! No I think I will make them reasonably brief. We will see what notes come my way. 
The short of Part 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill is that the enforcement regime is against not the people who do the money-laundering but the people who try to catch the money-launderers. In case there is any doubt about it that may lay the matter to rest. That is why it is important that a person who is acting in good faith—as a banker a bank manager a bank teller or whatever—is entitled to some freedom from civil action from a disgruntled customer who was perhaps wrongly suspected of being a suspicious transaction - type person. That is they are suspected of being a money-launderer or a prospective money-launderer. It is also the reason why individuals are removed from criminal proceedings under this legislation though the corporate is not. The corporate can be fined a very large amount of money; $5 million comes to mind as the likely figure. 
There were no huge changes to the legislation. Most of the changes came as the result of submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Some of the changes came especially around the interface between customs and money-laundering. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Due diligence. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: OK the member can tell us about the due diligence aspects of it. She is quite right. The bit about customs is quite interesting because it gets into who has what access to software that might be brought across the border. Some changes were made. Some of them emanated from officials some emanated from submitters and they were equally dealt with by the select committee. 
I do not think it is a particularly contentious part. My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard may think that there is contention in it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think about 20 minutes’ worth. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I was not aware of that much contention but I admire my colleague’s almost instant and deep understanding of legislation that is put in front of him. I believe that he has the sort of hawk eye one would expect of a person trained in accountancy; he can spot a rort from 100 miles—indeed 160 kilometres as we say these days. I think that if my colleague can find errors in this part of the legislation then it is really important that we examine them in order to address them before we move to the next phase of the legislation.
Power Simon: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6946] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with enforcement and contains provisions relating to civil liability acts offences search and seizure penalties and immunity of certain persons from criminal proceedings. In the first instance the bill obliges supervisors to engage in education awareness raising and guidance at the higher end. Supervisors may issue formal warnings and accept enforceable undertakings or initiate civil or criminal proceedings. The bill recognises that in extreme cases it may be necessary to take court actions against businesses that do not comply with their obligations. There are two levels of pecuniary penalty for civil liability. The bill contains criminal offences that range from smaller fines of $10000 to $50000. The penalties are I believe fair and consistent with other business-focused legislation in New Zealand. 
Part 3 also contains the search and seizure powers for the bill which clearly set out the expectations for the way supervisors and police officers should interact with the reporting entities they are investigating and the processes for seizing documents and items as evidence. 
I would now like to address the two significant changes that the committee recommended to Part 3. The first was to give immunity from liabilities to supervisors and reporting entities when they act in line with their duties and obligations under the bill. For example if a reporting entity terminates a business relationship then that reporting entity should not be open to a civil action from its customer. Clause 72A provides protection and certainty to supervisors and their employees. When they are discharging their duties in good faith they cannot be subject to civil or criminal action. Significantly the committee also removed—and the Government welcomes the committee’s recommendation—the explicit liability of senior managers of reporting entities in order to ease the concerns of industry that their managers would be held accountable for matters outside their control.
Dean Jacqui: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6942] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill describes the requirements and compliance with the legislation as proposed. The critical part for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was around customer due diligence. The concern expressed by a number of submitters was that the bill as introduced was perhaps overly prescriptive although it would be fair to say that the intention of the bill was well described and very clear. It was the job of the select committee to work through the specific issues and together with the input of members of the banking industry the bill that came out of the select committee better reflects the realities of customer due diligence requirements on behalf of the banking sector. 
Part 2 of the bill describes standard customer due diligence. It also describes the circumstances under which banks and financial institutions might be able to utilise simplified customer due diligence. That would be for customers with a relationship with the bank and again enhances customer due diligence. A number of other subparts to this part of the bill include Subpart 2 “Suspicious Transaction Reports” and requirements around that; requirements around record-keeping on behalf of financial institutions; and compliance with anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism requirements. There are also codes of practices and requirements around cross-border transportation of cash. Part 2 of this bill is quite lengthy and goes into detail on the compliance requirements around the intention of this bill.
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6941] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I was happy for my colleague Jackie Dean to take the next call on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill—and I am sure she will. 
I will give a serious contribution to Part 2 and it will not take particularly long. Part 2 is the guts of the bill and regrettably the politics are not brilliant although I sure my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard will be able to give the lie to that. Part 2 is where the major changes occur other than to the definition of “politically exposed person”. In essence in terms of this part members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee believe we took out a huge number of costs got rid of what the chairman called “bureaucracy central” and returned it to something closer to we think a risk-management approach and this was the part about which most but not all of the discussion between officials and the banking advisers took place. 
It is worth putting on the record again that the banking adviser people from the New Zealand Bankers’ Association are not with us but officials are. I want to place on the record the fact that although we initially got ourselves into quite a sticky position where some of us were pretty frustrated with the legislation as introduced the process by which it was resolved in the select committee was a tribute to all involved. And that certainly includes—in fact it is pretty much limited to—the banking association and the officials who served the committee. They got down got talking and got negotiating and they were solution-oriented instead of problem-oriented and that gave us the majority of the changes in the legislation. 
I give members an example. If someone from Zimbabwe—or someone from the North Island who is therefore a bit on the suss side to a South Islander—walks into a bank and if there are politically exposed person questions about the person then the bank does not have to fix that up and satisfy itself then and there. The bank can do that on day two and that means that the transaction can take place. Of course the records of the person will have been made available and the records will be checked in back-office activities the following day but to have that person—suspected of being but almost certainly not a money-launderer—waiting in a long queue at a bank was a bad idea. 
In a simplistic way I am trying to give the Committee some idea of what a risk management approach looks like. I conclude my remarks by saying again that I think those who were involved in getting down and sorting out the clauses and subclauses into what we have now did a very fine job and they ought to be thanked.
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6937] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It was a matter of courtesy to let the Government take the call because the Opposition took two calls in a row and indeed the speaker before that was another Opposition speaker. We have plenty more to say on this bill. If the matter is one of whether we have challenged the chair sufficiently then I guess we are guilty. But the fact of the matter is that we thought that the member who has just resumed her seat Jacqui Dean wanted to make a contribution. She is on the select committee; it was her turn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a fair point. I was considering accepting the motion simply because I did not think the Opposition was interested in taking any more calls. If the Opposition members are interested in having some more calls then in the interest of debate the Opposition had better start to call. Do I have any bidders?
Dean Jacqui: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6937] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6933] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The last 5 minutes have been a great example of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I would have thought that it would have been helpful to the Committee if the member opposite—experienced as he is given that he is a former Minister—had taken the time to speak to his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee about this issue before he came into the Chamber. 
The reason why the select committee members took the action they did and I have to say that we were absolutely united in making our decision was that we judged that there were sufficient checks and balances in the New Zealand system—including audits company requirements in legislation and a whole raft of other obligations on people who are engaged in business and in politics—to render totally unnecessary the sorts of changes that Mr Mallard was talking about. 
Furthermore I report to the House that we have something like 55000 names of politically exposed persons— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Not me. 
JOHN HAYES 
: —including Mr Cosgrove and me. All members of this House and their relatives are already on lists that are held commercially and used by each one of our banks. The suggestions that Mr Mallard is floating are absolutely unnecessary. I support the bill in its present form. Thank you.
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6933] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not want to carry this on. Without taking the varnish off the matter I say that if the member reflects on this issue and reads his  
Hansard 
 he will see that his speech was more appropriate to a general debate on Wednesday afternoon after 5 o’clock. His speech was getting on to issues that were well beyond the scope of the bill. I have said to the member that I will not rule out entirely the matters that he raised and I have made that point. But I would be concerned if those matters became the sole part of the presentation on parts of this bill. I just draw the member’s attention to what the House has decided by way of Standing Order 292(1): “A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” That being the case the Speakers’ rulings are quite clear. We are here to discuss the bill not to discuss what it had been or what it might have been. If a member wants to provide an amendment he or she can do that but that member must talk to the amendment. That is what members must do.
Quinn Paul: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6933] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 In my view the member killed his own argument. He spoke about the intention to introduce an amendment or the possibility of introducing an amendment—those were his words. In this case he gave us a diatribe of why the wording had been cut out and he chastised his own members on the select committee for allowing it to be cut out. I submit that that is not the same thing that he tried to say which related to the prospect of moving an amendment.
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6933] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I am vaguely apologising for doing this but my view is that your saying that people can debate amendments only when they have been tabled is a new ruling. For as long as I have been a member of the House members have indicated their intention to table amendments or the possibility of amendments being tabled. Very very specifically in this area I say that if it is the wish of the Committee for the Labour Opposition to table some amendments and to withdraw them later or not to withdraw them later then we can do that. My submission to you—and because you are my friend and colleague I do this with some reluctance—is that the ruling that you are making is without precedent. I have certainly never seen it in the time that I have been a member. In the past people have often discussed the changes and the subtleties that have occurred at the select committee and the effect that that has had on a particular clause of the bill and they have discussed whether that has been a good thing or a bad thing. I think that to rule that out would be something that is very new.
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just remind the member that if there was an amendment on the floor of the Chamber to that effect the member could then start to construct that argument. But as I understand it there is not an amendment on the floor of the Chamber to that effect. The member will appreciate that I did not call for order at the time that he mentioned it because I accept that the Committee is entitled to fair and broad-ranging debate. But I draw members’ attention to the fact that when we are in Committee we are focusing on the wording of the bill and on the intention of the bill and not on alternatives that are not part of the bill. Words that have now been struck out are not part of the bill. As I said we like to have a fair debate. Members are entitled to nudge against things but not make it the focus of their presentation.
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6932] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to ask you whether it is permissible to debate in the Committee stage whether it is appropriate to revert to the bill as introduced as an amendment with alternative wording to that which is currently before the Committee. I submit to you that it is quite within the realms of the Committee to put forward and pass an amendment to have the bill reinstated in the way that the Minister originally brought it to the House and if to do that is within the competence of the Committee then to suggest that it is done is also within the competence of the Committee.
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I call John Hayes I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 108/5: “Members must focus on the wording of the bill on the intention in this bill and not focus on alternatives that are not part of this bill.” I just draw members’ attention to the fact that what has been done before is not the focus of the debate.
Power Simon: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6931] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with preliminary matters as is normally the case in bills such as this one. The bill as reported back now explicitly describes in the purpose clause the Government’s intention that the private sector and public sector cooperate in the implementation and operation of the bill’s regime. 
I will draw attention very briefly to the interpretation clause and the changes made to it by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The committee inserted clause 3A “Overview” which is consistent with the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee. The committee also reviewed and refined a number of the definitions in the interpretation clause to eliminate any confusion or misconceptions about the scope of definitions such as what should be considered an occasional transaction. 
One important amendment is the addition of clause 4A. This clause eliminates any doubt that reporting entities may have about whether other services they offer are captured by the requirements of the bill. For example the bill is not intended to capture the restaurant or hotel services of a casino operator. Clause 4A clearly puts these additional services outside the span of the bill. 
As was referred to in many of the second reading speeches the committee also amended the definition of “politically exposed person” in order to exempt New Zealanders holding prominent public functions. As I mentioned in my second reading speech enhanced scrutiny of domestic politically exposed persons is not a strict requirement of the Financial Action Task Force.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:6925] 
8.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What legislative measures is the Government taking to tackle P? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government has progressed and is progressing a range of legislative measures that will ensure the authorities have more tools than before to fight against the gangs and P. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Search and Surveillance Powers Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will assist in that regard. I am confident that these measures will help the authorities to gain the necessary tools to attack gangs and other organised crime syndicates that manufacture supply and distribute P. 
Chester Borrows 
: What are the unique characteristics of P use in New Zealand that have made dealing with methamphetamine a priority for the Government? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: New Zealand has the third-highest reported use of methamphetamine in the world. This Government led by the Prime Minister himself has made getting rid of P a priority because it is wrecking lives wrecking families and fuelling crime. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What representation has he received from the Minister of Health about the cost of a doctor’s visit and the cost of a prescription charge which will now be faced by older people in our communities—people who are not setting up a P lab but who have just a really bad cold? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member can be assured that the Minister of Health has been heavily involved in the plan that was released by the Prime Minister in recent days. Frankly I find it a bit odd that that member and Clayton Cosgrove have taken a view that seems to be opposed to tackling this awful drug. 
Su’a William Sio 
: How will the Government’s cutting of $3.57 million and more than 50 jobs from border control allow a greater focus on P at the border? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Although I do not have any responsibility for border control and the primary question relates to legislative matters in my area I can tell the member that the Prime Minister has directed 40 border control officials in the New Zealand Customs Service into special work and task force groups in this particular area. I can assure him that recent gains made in this area by that organisation have been significant.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:6921] 
4.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he support a liability regime for the assessment and clean-up of toxic sites that is both fair and clearly defined? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The current law is clear that the responsibility lies with landowners and generally that is fair. For old sites there may be a need for reform and this is one of the issues the Government is considering as part of the second phase of the Resource Management Act reforms. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Minister implement an amendment to the Resource Management Act proposed in 1999 by the Minister for the Environment Simon Upton that included an innocent-landowner defence for owners of toxic sites who were not responsible for or aware of that pollution? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was quite a lot of policy work in which I was also involved in the 1990s as to whether the contaminated-site liability regime could be improved. That work came to an end and no work has been done over the last 9 or 10 years. I am open to revisiting that work. If the Green Party would like to work with the Government on revisiting the issue of some of those old sites and the liability laws I would be very open to that. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Minister also support the addition of identifiable polluters to the list of liable parties for the cost of assessment and clean-up of contaminated sites as proposed by the Ministry for the Environment and Simon Upton 10 years ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes that could have some merit. One of the difficulties is that many of the companies that were involved at the time were actually obeying the laws of the time. A further issue is that few of the companies that then existed and that might have been responsible for the pollution actually exist now. So one of the tests when we look at the reforms is whether we are going to find some pockets that can contribute to these clean-ups. I would need to be convinced that it will be practical to justify the law change and that is one of the issues the officials are looking at. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that coherent national standards for soil contamination clean-up are essential; if so when will his ministry provide these? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Primary responsibility for managing contaminated sites rests with regional councils. As I have said previously to the member the Government does not intend to change that. There are some very large sites and over the adjournment I went to the Tui Mine clean-up where some sites are of the scale the Government should supply support to through the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. It is really for only those very large and significantly contaminated sites that central government needs to get in and give regional councils a help.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
[Volume:658;Page:6914] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Ou te fa’atalofa atu i le päia ma le mamalu o le aofia. Mr Speaker I greet you members of this House and those listening and watching across this nation. I stand to also offer my condolences to the friends and family of those who were taken by the tsunami that hit the Pacific on 29 September. Almost 200 lives have been taken—every life precious every person loved. Every individual will be missed by friends and family both in the Pacific and across this nation. 
Returning to the place of my birth with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs I witnessed firsthand the destructive force of nature on the people of Samoa. Fales were flattened schools were decimated businesses were ruined and churches were crushed. The scene of some of my most fond childhood memories was destroyed by the cruel power of the sea. Although there was much pain and suffering we saw firsthand the resolve of the Samoan people. They were busy clearing debris and restoring water supplies and electricity lines and somehow they were looking forward to a brighter future. As my colleague and cousin Luamanuvao has pointed out they spoke a lot about their faith that their relatives were now at peace and in a better place. 
Some of the worst atrocities bring out the best in people. The response of the New Zealand Government the non-governmental organisation sector and the general public of New Zealand and around the world has been swift effective and overwhelming. I have seen firsthand the tsunami relief efforts in Auckland linking community organisers and faith leaders along with Government representatives. It is good that we can put our biases and partisanship aside to work towards a common goal. It has brought a community together to organise container-loads of goods supplies and materials and to organise fund-raising concerts and sports matches as well as memorial services. The resources that come from the fund-raising effort will be critical in the rebuilding of the villages and families that have been most affected by this catastrophe. 
Adversity has brought unity. Suffering has brought resolve. And loss has brought about a new sense of purpose urgency and hope. This tragedy has also shown the great love that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand have for our Pacific neighbours. Pakeha Maori Asian European—New Zealanders of all backgrounds have given of their time and resources to help those in need. My plea in this House is that the people of New Zealand continue to support the relief efforts in Samoa Tonga and American Samoa. Although the financial support and donations of food clothing and supplies are welcome in the long term the recovery of those islands will require a greater level of support comfort and above all aroha. 
Finally to our families and friends in the Pacific I say that we feel your pain we grieve for your loved ones and we honour their lives. Keep faithful be strong and know that our prayers and thoughts are with you always. Ofa atu. Soifua ma ia manuia.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
[Volume:658;Page:6912] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 None of us know for certain how we would react under extreme circumstances but most of us would like to hope that we would be capable in the terrifying reality and aftermath of a tsunami like this of behaving with the same courage dignity generosity and determination as our Samoan cousins have shown to the world. To put this disaster in context on a population basis 3330 New Zealanders would have died under similar circumstances. The Samoan tsunami deaths represent over 13 times the number of people killed in the Mount Erebus crash 22 times the number who died in the Tangiwai rail disaster 238 times the number who died at Cave Creek and 62 times the number who drowned in the  
Wahine 
 disaster. In the United States of America this tragedy would have registered 231397 deaths compared with the 3025 who died in the twin towers disaster. It sometimes requires us I think for small countries like Samoa to register those kinds of comparisons in order to realise the impact this tragedy will have on that small nation. 
That New Zealand hearts have gone out to our Samoan neighbours at this time of crisis is clear to everyone. That people with skills who can help or with money to contribute for immediate aid as well as reconstruction have all been doing so generously is as it should be. One always knows who one’s friends are at a time of great need and at no time in my lifetime have New Zealanders and Samoans felt closer than they do today.
Norman Russel William: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
Norman Russel William: Motions — Pacific Islands—Tsunami 
[Volume:658;Page:6909] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Today the Green Party honours victims of the tsunami in the independent State of Samoa American Samoa and Tonga. We pay tribute to those who have worked tirelessly to help the survivors and rebuild shattered communities. The tragic events show just how vulnerable our Pacific Island neighbours are to natural disasters such as the devastating tsunami. Small Island States are at the forefront of extreme weather events but are often the least equipped to cope. The people of Samoa have responded admirably to the challenge of rebuilding their lives and their nation. The response to the disaster here in New Zealand has been gratifying and I acknowledge those who have contributed to the relief effort donated goods and organised and attended fund-raising events. 
This crisis powerfully reminds us that Aotearoa New Zealand is a Pacific nation. We stand beside our Island brothers and sisters in solidarity. We share their tears and their pain. We share their optimism for the future and their desire to rebuild. The bond between New Zealand and Samoa is strong. The Samoan community in New Zealand has helped to redefine our national identity. Samoan New Zealanders contribute strongly to this nation’s cultural artistic sporting and spiritual life. Today we acknowledge that deep and enduring relationship and send our alofa to Samoa.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Murray Robert Smith 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Murray Robert Smith 
[Volume:658;Page:6907] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 September 2009 of Murray Robert Smith who represented the electorate of Whangarei from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Murray Robert Smith 
Obituaries — Murray Robert Smith 
[Volume:658;Page:6907] 
Tuesday 13 October 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Murray Robert Smith 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 September 2009 of Murray Robert Smith who represented the electorate of Whangarei from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6970] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 We have just listened to 10 minutes of diatribe from Moana Mackey. We have just listened for 10 minutes to a person who had the gall to accuse the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Mr David Bennett of having no substance. She said that his speech was only 2 minutes long and there was nothing in it. I have been in this place for a wee while. I have listened to some good speeches and I have listened to some bad ones. The point made by Moana Mackey at the end of her speech which was the best part was that the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill was “all public relations and no substance.” That speech was 10 minutes’ worth of public relations and no substance. 
Most people in this House will support the bill. There was nothing in what that member said or for that matter what anybody from Labour said including Darien Fenton who went on about the bus strike for goodness’ sake! She went on about the bus strike. Her speech had nothing to do with the legislation before the House. All she did was prattle on about the poor people in Auckland because some bus drivers and a bus company cannot get their a. into g. That is all she prattled on about. 
This is a serious bill. It is about mayhem on our streets. It is about people who do not care about the community. Yes there are people in west Auckland who have to sit by their windows and listen to the boy racers as they go up and down. Let me tell the House something. More important let me tell the boy racers—and I hate using the words “boy racers”— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hanging on every word. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am sure they will be. They will be lined up on the four avenues right at this point in time and they will be listening. I tell them that when they have five children and three under the age of 5 and they are trying to get them off to sleep at night and some hoon is going up and down past their window they will be on the verge of nuttiness as most people in this country are when they have been not only attacked by—and I mean attacked by—noise but also— 
John Hayes 
: Assaulted. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —assaulted by antisocial behaviour. 
Darien Fenton 
: Try getting three over 5-year-olds to school with no buses. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What? Oh now that member is on the buses again. I am dumbfounded and all I can do for the House in response to that member is to say thanks very much and sit down.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was about to give the member the chance to seek leave but he must not misuse the point of order procedure like that. The particular issue that the member is wishing to ask an urgent question about is nothing like the demolition of a building. The House will have plenty of opportunity to debate the matter because obviously legislation will be required; there will be many opportunities to debate it so it is not remotely the same circumstance.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Before doing so could I refer the Speaker to Speaker’s ruling 151/3 which states that a classic circumstance of urgency in the public interest is where some irrevocable course of events is about to happen—for instance a building is about to be demolished. The accident compensation scheme is about to be demolished in its current form—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker has dealt with that matter so that is the end of it. I do not consider it is necessary for that urgent question to be asked today and that is the end of that matter. There can be no litigation of that. I guess that if the honourable member wishes to he could seek leave to ask his question.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
12.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What recent decisions has the Ministry of Fisheries made in regard to marine farming applications? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce the news that the aquaculture management area in Wilsons Bay in the Coromandel has been given the green light. An area of 1783 hectares has been approved. Of this 520 hectares will be shellfish farming and the rest will be used for access. As per our settlement commitments 20 percent of this area will be allocated to Maori. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Labour policy. 
Sandra Goudie 
: To the Minister of Fisheries—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Sandra Goudie. Please show her some courtesy. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How long had this application been in the works? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am pleased to talk about Shane Jones’ Labour policies. The application had been in the works for 9 long years which highlights the barriers in Labour’s legislation. That is why I am delighted to announce that the Government’s Aquaculture Technical Advisory Group has reported back. We will publicly announce the group’s work in early November and the legislation that Shane Jones put through that meant that this consent took 9 long years will be fixed.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 As the House has made very good progress this afternoon I seek the leave of the House for it to rise early. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
Tabling of Documents 
Climate Change—Australian Position 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table four documents. The first is a transcript of an interview with the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator the Hon Penny Wong with an update of the Australian Government’s latest position on climate change legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press release from the Leader of the Opposition in Australia Malcolm Turnbull outlining the changes to the Australian emissions trading scheme that the Liberal Party seeks. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a media release from Senator the Hon Penny Wong setting out a critique of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in Australia concerning the Australian emissions trading scheme. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that is very similar to the last one I have just sought leave to table. The last one was dated 4 October; this one is dated 8 October. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 As the House has made very good progress this afternoon I seek the leave of the House for it to rise early. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that is very similar to the last one I have just sought leave to table. The last one was dated 4 October; this one is dated 8 October. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a media release from Senator the Hon Penny Wong setting out a critique of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in Australia concerning the Australian emissions trading scheme. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press release from the Leader of the Opposition in Australia Malcolm Turnbull outlining the changes to the Australian emissions trading scheme that the Liberal Party seeks. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
Chauvel Charles: Tabling of Documents — Climate Change—Australian Position 
[Volume:658;Page:7408] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table four documents. The first is a transcript of an interview with the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator the Hon Penny Wong with an update of the Australian Government’s latest position on climate change legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Joyce Steven: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Joyce Steven: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7407] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: I move  
That the Education and Science Committee consider the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 20 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) 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.