edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
Points of Order 
Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We note you have taken we think the unusual step of writing to Mr Clarkson to tell him that he has been out of order in holding up signs and other stuff in the House and in suggesting that he might wear a crash helmet in the House today. We would hope that you have written to Mr Mallard the Deputy Prime Minister the Prime Minister the Labour whips and everybody else here who have been waving signs around this House quite liberally in the last couple of weeks. We ask you to indicate to the House whether that is an action you have taken. Further we offer the view that had Mr Mallard not gone out of his way last week to be in the near vicinity of Mr Clarkson clearly Mr Clarkson would not feel the need to wear a helmet today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. Obviously the latter matter he raised is a matter of privilege that has been raised with me and is under consideration at the moment. The other matter was outside the Standing Orders. Members on all sides of the House from time to time raise visual signs to assist their questions or answers. Mr Clarkson’s position was in a totally different category from that. 
Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have one point in relation to my motion earlier. I think it might be appropriate on the occasion of this very important anniversary to recognise the presence with us today of the Hungarian Honorary Consul in New Zealand Klara Szentirmay and other members of the Hungarian community. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to acknowledge their presence please do so. 
[ 
Applause 
]
Motions — Hungarian Revolution—50th Anniversary 
Motions — Hungarian Revolution—50th Anniversary 
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
Tuesday 24 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Hungarian Revolution—50th Anniversary 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House  
(1)commends the Hungarian people as they mark the 50th anniversary of the October 1956 Revolution which set the stage for the democratic changes which occurred in 1989 in Hungary and other Eastern European countries;  
(2)expresses its condolences to the people of Hungary for those who lost their lives fighting for the cause of Hungarian freedom and independence in 1956 as well as those individuals executed by the Soviet and Hungarian authorities in the 5 years following the Revolution including Prime Minister Imre Nagy;  
(3)welcomes the achievement of democracy in Hungary in 1989 and the progress its people have made since then;  
(4)reaffirms the friendship and cooperative relations between the Governments of Hungary and New Zealand and between the Hungarian and New Zealand people;  
(5)notes that over 1000 Hungarian refugees came to New Zealand after the Revolution was crushed by Soviet forces;  
(6)recognises the significant contribution of the Hungarian community to the progress of New Zealand over the last 50 years; and  
(7)asks the Speaker to convey this motion to the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6265] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Collins Judith: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
Collins Judith: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6255] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify did the Minister say 11 October? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes.
Parker David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
Parker David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6255] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343. On 11 October 2006 in reply to question No. 10 and in reference to the Armstrong report I told the House that I had been advised that the total cost of the report to that date was $156476. I am now advised that the total cost to that date was $163601.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6249] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6249] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 39; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 52(3) be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclauses (3) and (3A) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(3)When the decision in section 52(1) relates to a geographical indication for wine two of the members appointed to the committee must be nominated by the national industry organisation for the New Zealand wine industry.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6249] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 52(2) be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (c) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)1 or more persons from New Zealand Winegrowers or the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand or another organisation representing wine and spirits producers.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(6)If the committee thinks it necessary the committee may obtain advice on and may consult about any matter relating to— 
(a)an application for the registration of a geographical indication including opposition to an accepted application; or 
(b)the registrability of a geographical indication; or 
(c)alterations to a registered geographical indication.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4)
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(2)Each committee must consist of 3 persons appointed by the Registrar having knowledge or experience of issues relevant to the application.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6247] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6247] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)Notwithstanding (1) and (2) it is not necessary for the Registrar to establish a geographical indications committee for the registration of geographical indications in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k) or for the alteration or removal of geographical indications registered in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k).
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6247] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4 United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “to advise the Registrar on issues relating to the boundaries and the use of a place name as a geographical indication” and substitute the words “to decide on the matters relating to the registration of a geographical indication or the alteration or removal of a registered geographical indication.”
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6246] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 39; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “may if the Registrar thinks fit” and substitute the word “must”.
Woolerton R Doug: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6239] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. We see items of this nature as necessary evils; we see them as barriers to our trade that are put up by the European community and others. Having said that and accepting that we have to play by their rules when it comes to exporting into their countries I say that we need to take advantage of the barriers if we are to have them in place and we need to make sure they work for us. I am pleased to see that in some ways this bill goes towards doing that. 
We will not be supporting the amendments put up by the National Party for two reasons. Firstly we are satisfied that the registrar can tap into relevant expertise as he or she sees fit. We have sought clarification on that point from the Government and we have been satisfied as to the extent that they can do that. Secondly and this is somewhat personal I have always wondered why industry groups would join in with the Government in a registering situation or in a judicial situation. It is a healthy tension and a rightful one for industry groups to have their say then stand aside from the judicial body or the registrar or whatever it may be so they can more fairly more transparently and more vehemently put their case. If they lock themselves into a situation like this then I believe that actually weakens their case and they will have a hard job if they find that things are not working in their favour. That is a personal view formed through bitter experience in a practical farming sense over many many years. I have never been a trade negotiator nor do I aspire to be one but I have always believed that people who advocate on behalf of their members—growers in most cases—should reserve the right to challenge any decision made by the Government. I suggest to them that if they were to have a decent talk to their lawyers their lawyers would probably advise them that that is the better way to go. It reminds me of the old story: stay outside the tent and preserve one’s integrity and fire shots at those within.
Hayes John: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6237] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill this afternoon. I do so particularly because I have consulted with the wine industry in parts of my electorate and also with the industry more generally though its high-level bodies and it is clear that there is broad-based support for the bulk of this bill. There is just one area where we would part company with the Government on the proposals being promoted by the Minister in respect of this bill and that is essentially around the mechanism that drives the process. The bill proposes that a Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications is appointed by the Minister and that this person be a public servant—a member of the Ministry of Economic Development. The committee would then have as proposed by this bill two additional people. One is the Surveyor-General and one is the Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications. Neither of those two people have the slightest competence to determine the geographic locale of a particular wine because a wine—if we listen to people in the industry—has something called character. The character of a wine is dependent on soil type on climate on the winemaker on the process used to make the wine—on a whole lot of factors none of which are about putting lines on maps or determining place names. 
Minister Tizard through her Supplementary Order Paper is proposing the option of one person from the wine industry being appointed to the committee. But the National Party will propose that the bill be amended particularly clauses 36 51 and 52 to allow a registrar to be appointed We have no problem if that person is a bureaucrat but the industry must nominate the other two members of the committee so that those members are known to have competence in the issues being discussed by the committee. We are asking that those amendments be made. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Basically the National Party supports this legislation in its general sense but it does not agree that the process should be run by bureaucrats. We view this bill as a make-work scheme designed by bureaucrats and put forward by a Labour Minister for no particular purpose. The bill specifically excludes competent people from being employed to make decisions on behalf of the industry. This is very very poor public policy that we want to change. 
I will reserve the right to come back and discuss the detail of these issues in due course but I am just setting out that yes we support the bill it is important for the industry but we do not support the mechanism that is being proposed. I hope we will have support from other parties in this House. If we do not get that support I serve notice now that were the Government to change the changes proposed in my Supplementary Order Paper would be brought in by a National-led Government.
Blumsky Mark: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6235] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is nice to have this opportunity to follow the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker because I think it is important to put a little bit of fact around the lovely story he was telling us. I have here the Government bill that was reported back from the Commerce Committee. I want to put on record the view of Opposition members on the Commerce Committee. The Opposition members’ view was from New Zealand First New Zealand National and ACT New Zealand and they stated: “Opposition members oppose this bill on the grounds that New Zealand should not be implementing the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners.” 
That is exactly the reason for the position that was taken by members on this side of the Chamber during the select committee process. So for the Minister to make up a wonderful story with assumptions and presumptions that it was a lot more than that is wrong. It is important to note that our opposition was based on the fact that there was a discussion about writing cheques to Russia which Kyoto would have enabled and on the fact that our major trading partners were not signing up and therefore why should we? 
I think the Committee is very clear from our talking on the title that we are very supportive of the bill and the work it is trying to do. I think there is some embarrassment from the Government—or there bloody well should be—about the fact that the bill entered the House in 2005 and it is nearly 2007. It is a tragedy that half of the members who sat on that committee are not here now to be part of this process. I suggest that we need urgent action for sure but at least we are getting there now and that is important. 
National supports the bill. We believe that it provides a sensible system of tradable emission permits which is important for New Zealand and where we will need to go in the future.
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6235] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The member who just took his seat Mr Roy asked why it has taken so long to pass this legislation. The answer is that it is because it has taken time to build a consensus. It has taken time to build a consensus not just in this Parliament but outside of it. This legislation was ridiculed by his party when it was first called. It was ridiculed at first reading. It was ridiculed by his party at the Commerce Committee. It is substantially unchanged. It has always been very good legislation since it was first promoted by the Hon Pete Hodgson. He was ridiculed for his support of it. The member’s party still ridicules Kyoto despite its being the most effective policy instrument that there is yet in the world to moderate greenhouse gas emissions. 
The reason that this legislation has taken time to progress is that it was necessary to build a consensus outside of this place outside of Parliament in New Zealand. Through our own efforts but also with the assistance of a bit of luck and the likes of  
An Inconvenient Truth 
 raising people’s consciousness of climate change issues that consensus within the community has now been reached. As a consequence of that we are seeing support for this bill that did not exist before from parties such as the member’s. The only thing that has changed in the intervening period is not this legislation— 
Eric Roy 
: It’s changed quite a bit. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it has not; it is public support. It is public awareness that the issue of climate change is serious and that the very large number of small steps that need to be taken to address climate change ought to be taken and this is one of them.
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6232] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I will respond to a few of the statements that have been made today— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’ll be going for a week! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. Correcting some of the errors that have been mentioned in the few speeches we have heard from the National Party on just this part will take some time. 
First of all Eric Roy said that the Labour members of the Committee had said that agriculture is the evil supplier of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. I have been here during the whole debate and that has not been said. It is true that agriculture does account for 50 percent of New Zealand’s emissions but that does not make it evil. I have never said that; neither has this Government. It does mean that progress is needed in the agricultural sector as it is in other sectors. 
The second point I would make is about the repeated claims to environmental responsibility on the part of the National Party. The self-praise its members heap upon  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 can be judged from the statement made by the last speaker when he once again attacked the Resource Management Act. That Act is the central piece of legislation that protects environmental sustainability in New Zealand. People cannot say they are in favour of environmental sustainability when they attack that Act. 
This part of the bill in terms of the contribution it will make to sustainability encourages the afforestation of areas of land especially those that are of marginal value and prone to erosion. The benefits from the afforestation of those areas include improved water quality as a consequence of reduced erosion. This bill will make a difference. All parties in this Chamber it now appears agree that this is sensible legislation and I think that is progress. It is one step along the difficult road that New Zealand and the world have to take in order to remediate greenhouse gas emissions. 
In terms of the suggestion made by the member that New Zealand did not create the problem although it is true that we did not create the problem on our own we have created it more than most countries. New Zealand’s rate of emissions on a per capita basis is higher than most countries’ rate. We cannot fix the problem on our own but we should be part of the fix. How are we part of the fix? This bill is an example of that. It will see increased afforestation through the measures regarding permanent forest sinks that will sequester carbon and therefore reduce the world’s problems relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
Hughes Darren: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6229] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to table an extract from the  
Horowhenua-Kapiti Chronicle  
of Friday 3 November which reports that 20 people attended the National Party environmental policy launch not 40 people as claimed by Mr Guy in his speech. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6220] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly I thank sincerely the National Party for its indication that it will support this bill and also the other parties including the Greens the Maori Party and United Future that have been staunch throughout the passage of this bill that it is worthwhile legislation to adopt. It is surprising that this support from National was not shown earlier because the bill is substantially unchanged from the form in which it went to the Commerce Committee. A few amendments were made by the committee and we agree they are sensible. The Government is promoting a Supplementary Order Paper which will be considered at this stage but essentially the bill is unchanged. 
I will respond to a couple of comments made by the Hon Bill English that were with respect exaggerations. He said that the greenhouse gas emissions growth in New Zealand is higher than in any other OECD country. I am reading from figure 4 of the latest United Nations advanced version on national greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990-2004. In respect of greenhouse gas emissions without land-use change-related emissions it shows that Australia’s emissions increased at a higher rate than New Zealand’s; and that was the same for Ireland Canada and Portugal— 
Eric Roy 
: Gross or percentage terms? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In percentage terms and as well in gross terms. Mr English’s assertion was with respect incorrect. In terms of New Zealand’s increases in emissions it is true that our emissions have grown since 1990 and we need to do better to reduce our emissions. It is also true that Government policies around wind power have brought forward wind power development in a way that would not have otherwise occurred and but for that successful policy New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions would be higher. 
It is also true that forest planting rates have decreased. What is not true is to say that they have decreased most under our watch. The greatest decreases in rates of planting occurred during the period of the previous National Government. This is not a good thing but it would not be fair to blame National for that. It is a consequence of the changing economics of forestry compared with competing land uses so that the relative value of the land that could have been put into forestry was higher for farmers to use for other agricultural purposes. So they did. 
Having said that it is true that we want to encourage more afforestation because of course trees have the joint benefit of sequestering carbon and avoiding increases in agricultural emissions that occur if the land is used for agricultural purposes. The Government agrees there is a desirability to encourage more afforestation and this bill is an important step in that process by devolving carbon credits to permanent forest sinks so that those landowners have the benefit of the carbon credits that can accrue from the sequestration of carbon in those forests—be they exotic or indigenous forest.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6216] 
12.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What fiscal economic and other initiatives is he considering to implement the Prime Minister’s vision that “New Zealand aim to be the first country which is truly sustainable” and “carbon neutral”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has a wide range of initiatives under way and under consideration in this area. For example a bill currently before the House makes use of economic incentives to promote sustainability and the Government is working with the member on the issue of greater use of solar water heaters. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How seriously can we take a Government commitment to making New Zealand sustainable while the Superannuation Fund continues to invest in the climate change deniers at Exxon Mobil and in uranium mining for the nuclear industry and if the Superannuation Fund is about protecting our future is it not time that our money was invested only in companies not dedicated to undermining our future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: First of all the Government does not directly control investments by the Superannuation Fund nor should it. If that were ever under consideration the best thing to do would be to wind up the fund and use the money to pay off debt; that would be a far better solution. Secondly the investment in uranium mining is actually investment in two mining companies both of which are subject to controls in terms of involvement in the nuclear armaments industry. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What is the estimated cost of implementing the Prime Minister’s vision of a carbon-neutral New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It would be impossible to arrive at an estimate but it is worth noting that the Stern report tells us that the long-term costs of taking no action are probably greater than the long-term costs of taking action.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6209] 
6.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What progress has been made on the Quality Regulation Review? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Excellent progress. The first milestone report has confirmed New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape. However the forums and sector interviews in particular have raised some specific concerns that the Government is committed to addressing. Cabinet has also signed off on a strengthened regulatory impact analysis process which will be in place by the beginning of April next year. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What are the next steps in the review? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Cabinet has directed Government departments to report back to Ministers by the end of the year on workable solutions in a number of areas including the removal of duplicated or overlapping regulatory requirements the provision of tailored information to meet the needs of business when dealing with regulation the design of “safe harbour” provisions for business and more rigorous risk analysis when developing and enforcing laws. Business has welcomed this approach to identifying and resolving barriers to growth. 
Rodney Hide 
: If this Government is so proud of its Quality Regulation Review why has it banned Labour MPs from fronting up to meetings to be held tomorrow lunchtime here in Wellington on Thursday in Auckland and on Friday in Christchurch organised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants to debate red tape in general and my Regulatory Responsibility Bill in particular—which is before this Parliament—or is it that the Government does not have the confidence to engage in debate on this issue before a business audience? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of anyone being banned from attending those meetings.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6203] 
2.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to enhance New Zealand’s business capability? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The review of the Government’s business assistance programmes shows that generally they are helping New Zealand firms to be competitive at home as well as overseas. We are continuing to work on making sure the programmes are as effective as possible. This Government is committed to the continual improvement of performance in order to make the economic transformation of New Zealand a reality. 
Maryan Street 
: Has he seen any reports on the results delivered by business assistance programmes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes lots. One that I received recently was from CleanFlow Systems. It received an enterprise development grant for market development that enabled the company to travel through the US and Europe to promote its product and to gain access to a pool of potential customers. Since its launching in the US and European markets sales of its profile have more than quadrupled and global distribution networks are in place for Europe Asia North America and Australasia. This is a very good example of how sometimes a little bit of support can make an enormous difference in creating jobs in New Zealand.
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am happy to assist the member. This report has been subject to a number of peer reviews. About 2 weeks ago it was subjected to an additional peer review and about 1 week ago to an additional peer review again. The last review is the one where the reviewer was chosen not by the Ministry of Health but by the World Health Organization.
Kedgley Sue: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
Kedgley Sue: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Minister clarify whether the independent expert he talked about which the World Health Organization is to appoint will be the only expert or will there be another expert? The Minister did not make that clear at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister assist the member in this please.
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On Thursday 26 October I advised the House that anonymised individual data from the Paritutu dioxin serum study had been provided to peer reviewers of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report as I had been advised by the Ministry of Health. I have subsequently been advised that only analysed anonymised data was provided to the peer reviewers. I am also advised that this in line with normal accepted practice in an environmental epidemiological survey. 
However the Ministry of Health has asked the World Health Organization to appoint an additional expert to review the report. This expert will be provided with the individual anonymised data. I can also advise the House that after discussions with the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner the Ministry of Health has released appendix O of the Paritutu report under the Official Information Act though it has been slightly amended at the request of the Privacy Commissioner.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Search Warrant for Parliamentary and Electorate Offices—Interim Agreement 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Search Warrant for Parliamentary and Electorate Offices—Interim Agreement 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On 27 October 2006 the police executed a search warrant as part of the investigation into the activities of Taito Phillip Field. The search involved material held in parliamentary and electorate offices. It was conducted in accordance with a search warrant and an interim agreement between the Speaker and the Commissioner of Police. The interim agreement was designed to ensure that the search warrant was executed without improperly interfering with the functioning of Parliament and that any claim of parliamentary privilege in relation to physical or electronic documents that the police may have wanted to seize could be raised and properly resolved. Such a situation had not arisen before and an interim agreement was required to provide for the immediate circumstance. Members may wish to consider the terms of the interim agreement before any ongoing agreement is formalised. Therefore I intend to present the interim agreement to the House today and seek to have the Privileges Committee consider it once the police investigation and any subsequent action is concluded. Copies will be available in the Bills Office.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6255] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 11 October 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343. On 11 October 2006 in reply to question No. 10 and in reference to the Armstrong report I told the House that I had been advised that the total cost of the report to that date was $156476. I am now advised that the total cost to that date was $163601. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify did the Minister say 11 October? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 26 October 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On Thursday 26 October I advised the House that anonymised individual data from the Paritutu dioxin serum study had been provided to peer reviewers of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report as I had been advised by the Ministry of Health. I have subsequently been advised that only analysed anonymised data was provided to the peer reviewers. I am also advised that this in line with normal accepted practice in an environmental epidemiological survey. 
However the Ministry of Health has asked the World Health Organization to appoint an additional expert to review the report. This expert will be provided with the individual anonymised data. I can also advise the House that after discussions with the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner the Ministry of Health has released appendix O of the Paritutu report under the Official Information Act though it has been slightly amended at the request of the Privacy Commissioner. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Minister clarify whether the independent expert he talked about which the World Health Organization is to appoint will be the only expert or will there be another expert? The Minister did not make that clear at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister assist the member in this please. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am happy to assist the member. This report has been subject to a number of peer reviews. About 2 weeks ago it was subjected to an additional peer review and about 1 week ago to an additional peer review again. The last review is the one where the reviewer was chosen not by the Ministry of Health but by the World Health Organization.
Speaker’s Statements — Search Warrant for Parliamentary and Electorate Offices—Interim Agreement 
Speaker’s Statements — Search Warrant for Parliamentary and Electorate Offices—Interim Agreement 
[Volume:635;Page:6201] 
Tuesday 7 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Search Warrant for Parliamentary and Electorate Offices—Interim Agreement 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On 27 October 2006 the police executed a search warrant as part of the investigation into the activities of Taito Phillip Field. The search involved material held in parliamentary and electorate offices. It was conducted in accordance with a search warrant and an interim agreement between the Speaker and the Commissioner of Police. The interim agreement was designed to ensure that the search warrant was executed without improperly interfering with the functioning of Parliament and that any claim of parliamentary privilege in relation to physical or electronic documents that the police may have wanted to seize could be raised and properly resolved. Such a situation had not arisen before and an interim agreement was required to provide for the immediate circumstance. Members may wish to consider the terms of the interim agreement before any ongoing agreement is formalised. Therefore I intend to present the interim agreement to the House today and seek to have the Privileges Committee consider it once the police investigation and any subsequent action is concluded. Copies will be available in the Bills Office.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6379] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be referred to the Regulations Review Committee 
referred to Regulations Review Committee 
 and that it be an instruction to the committee that it finally report the bill back by 4 December 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6379] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Woolerton R Doug: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6376] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As so eloquently described by Dr Worth—and Dr Cullen of course—this bill covers a lot of areas where legislation needs to be passed from time to time in order for some regulations to continue to exist. I have to say that I used to be a great fan of sunset clauses in legislation but when one is confronted with legislation such as this and one thinks that sunset clauses could bring legislation such as this to Parliament every week of every month of every year it sort of puts one off a little bit. 
In this regard because I am a generalist by nature and not a detail person and because I tend to be somewhat dismissive of people who go through the fine print I must give credit to the Regulations Review Committee. Its members go through this stuff they are the ones that make sure there are no problems in it and they are the ones who sign it off. I take this opportunity while there are not too many people in the House to thank the members of the select committee because they fulfil a very necessary job in this Parliament. It is not something that a generalist by nature should be involved in; it is more the sort of thing that a person with some legal training should be involved in. So Mr Worth who is a sterling member of that select committee is just the right sort of person to go through it. 
This bill covers a lot of things. New Zealand First is in favour of it and we look forward to its passage through the House.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6373] 
12.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Is he satisfied with the operations of all the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes covered by the evaluations released over the last week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is a further in-depth review necessary of the Escalator programme which has failed to meet its capital-raising targets has received 85 percent negative feedback in a survey or participants and has been described by participants as a gravy train for brokers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think some of the messages out of that evaluation are getting through. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the Beachheads programme 4 years after its inception when a review just completed showed that it had little impact on participating firms’ performance and had incomplete policy objectives and that the Ministry of Economic Development conducted little oversight of the programme’s development? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is too early to tell whether Beachheads will work really well. The feedback I have had from a number of individual firms is very positive although it is fair to say that some of the people who are working in this policy area have been diverted to work through large Official Information Act requests and an extraordinary number of questions from that member. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the Sector Projects programme when the review found that there was not sufficient information available to determine whether the programme met its policy outcomes and that the efficiency of the programme could not be measured because New Zealand Trade and Enterprise did not record staff time spent on projects? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the honest answer to that one is that I do not know because we do not have the information yet. I think the evaluation was done too early and the information was incomplete as the member has pointed out. Is it not wonderful to have a Government that is very clear and has done a whole range of evaluations? Most of those are positive but of course there are one or two organisations that are not doing as well as they could. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Is the Minister concerned that more than 3 years after the establishment of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise the September 2006 overview report by the Ministry of Economic Development states that there is no mechanism currently in place to measure explicitly and routinely the success of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes against intended policy outcomes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes.