edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1239] 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received on recent upgrades to Royal New Zealand Air Force capabilities? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have received a report that last Friday the Royal New Zealand Air Force received the first of the five P3K2 Orion aircraft being upgraded by Safe Air Ltd in Blenheim. The upgraded aircraft boast state-of-the-art technology including a new long-range surveillance radar system and long-range infrared imaging equipment. This is great news for the air force and shows that the New Zealand Defence Force savings plan is enabling the delivery of front-line capabilities.  
Dr Cam Calder 
: What benefits will these upgraded aircraft bring to the Royal New Zealand Air Force and other Government agencies?  
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The upgrade improves the Royal New Zealand Air Force long-range and mid-range maritime patrol capabilities and enables the air force to deliver enhanced support to military operations in keeping with the “one force” approach set out in the defence white paper. The upgrade also improves the Orions’ capabilities to participate in search and rescue customs police and maritime safety operations.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems the Minister might be quoting from an official document prior to 2008 and I wonder whether he could table it.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me check with the Minister. Is the Minister quoting from an official document?  
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No I am actually quoting from my answers. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me rephrase that: I am quoting from the material that my office has prepared— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] The members may have forgotten that their own colleague called the point of order and they should be silent. I am now on my feet and they should be even more silent. The Minister does not have to table the material prepared to answer a question.
Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1258] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am quickly developing a real taste I have got to say for the member Denis O’Rourke’s speeches. I may have to start a Denis O’Rourke fan Facebook page. We will see. But can I say in all seriousness to the member that I do hope New Zealand First is not going down the holier-than-thou purer-than-pure road that the Greens have long been on which is to say that if there is a clause out of place or something that just is not quite 100 percent perfect then they oppose the whole lot. Although I am enjoying the member’s speeches it seems that that is the approach he has taken on the last bill or two that he has spoken on.  
That is not to say to the member that somehow one has to compromise one’s principles. Of course it is a difficult decision sometimes where there are parts of a bill you do not agree with whether to vote for it. But on the whole where a bill makes a whole range of substantive improvements rationalisations to the law one would have thought it would be good to support it particularly as the member has said that his party is strong on law and order. Well a party cannot consistently say that it is strong on law and order and then vote against stronger law and order enforcement measures. So I pose that to the member.  
I will not speak for long. I have really said the things that I wanted to say on the Search and Surveillance Bill in the first reading and the second reading. But can I just say again that it is a very large bill some 260 pages and I think that the Justice and Electoral Committee chaired by Chester Borrows and with Lianne Dalziel and David Parker on it showed select committees at their finest. It was an excellent process. I think there was give and take and real analysis drilling down into the issues.  
I just reiterate something else I have said in agreement with David Parker I think it was and that is that the vast majority of Parliament agrees with the vast majority of this bill. That is not to say that there are not some real disagreements. I appreciate that one of the particular areas is in regard to the Serious Fraud Office but as a measure in total this bill is a very good one that does as I say modernise rationalise and bring clarity to this tricky difficult area of law.  
Just to finish I note that the Hon John Banks made I thought a very good point when he talked about the tensions involved in this sort of area. He said that this is as good as we can get and in a sense I agree with him. That does not mean that it is perfect because frankly when you have got a bill of this size about to become law even when one has a real eye for the detail it is not going to be perfect. But on the continuum where rights and liberties are at one end and security and safety of the public citizenry are at the other end I think we have got the balance pretty well where it should be. I think we have tried faithfully at the select committee and in this Parliament now to get that balance right and so I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1244] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take a new point of order. I have ruled on that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In those considerations you are likely I suppose to take account of the advice you actually gave the House which was that in the end the House cannot say how an answer should be given. If the question is in order it is asked; if an answer is in order it is given. Whether people like the answer is an entirely different matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept what the member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to take this matter any further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well Mr Speaker you have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No I am not. I have heard from the Rt Hon Winston Peters I have heard from the other member involved in the question exchange and I will be looking exactly at that. The points made are perfectly reasonable points. As Speaker I need to be careful to make sure that questions are answered because Standing Order 383 requires Ministers to answer questions. But as the Hon Bill English points out it is not up to the Speaker to judge the quality of an answer or to prescribe how a Minister should answer. That is why I am not saying that I will give a considered ruling at all. If the matter is absolutely within the normal Standing Orders provisions and Speakers’ rulings then I do not intend to give a considered ruling because what I have ruled today is perfectly consistent with those if that is the case on my further examination.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1244] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could prevail upon you to give us a considered written opinion about the points of order that were raised during question No. 10 today. I have been thinking about your answers and frankly I would like you to give me the logic and the reason behind them because it would be rather worrying if a Minister could avoid answering questions that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member I will look at the matter. I will deliver a considered ruling only if I consider that the matter merits it because I do not do considered rulings on matters that clearly do not have merit. I am not prejudging that.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1244] 
12. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What support has the Government provided in restoring sporting facilities in Christchurch since the Canterbury earthquakes? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: The Canterbury earthquakes caused severe damage to many sporting facilities in the Canterbury region. I am pleased to announce that the new Christchurch Stadium in Addington will open this weekend on schedule with the Crusaders playing the Cheetahs in the Super Rugby competition. This is the first game of Super Rugby that the seven-times-champion Crusaders will play in Christchurch since May of 2010. The facility is available for use for a wide range of sports entertainment and cultural activities in what is without doubt New Zealand’s leading sporting province. The stadium is also an important part of the economic redevelopment of Christchurch.  
Nicky Wagner 
: How did the Government support the development of this stadium?  
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The Government provided funding and an underwrite for the stadium and officials worked tirelessly to bring the stadium into being. The Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust the New Zealand Rugby Union and the Christchurch City Council have also supported this ambitious project. I would like to pay tribute to the committed and passionate workforce who have literally worked through the night to deliver this stadium for the people of Canterbury on time in less than 100 days. This is yet another commitment from the election that the National-led Government has already delivered on.
Clark David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clark David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1242] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to hold over my question until the Minister of Revenue is in the Chamber and able to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1239] 
8. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What is the likely total cost of the “Urewera Four” case to the Crown from the start of surveillance of suspects to the close of the trial on Tuesday including all of the different Government departments that were involved? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I am advised that the costs for New Zealand Police excluding salaries as at September 2011 were $500462. I am further advised that police projected total costs are difficult to predict at this time. Crown Law records that the total cost of prosecutions which involved hearings and appeals on a series of interlocutory applications as well as substantive trial matters totalled $322412.35 between 2009 and 17 February 2012. Crown Law does not yet have information on the cost of the most recent hearing which ended on Tuesday but expects to be advised of this shortly by the Crown solicitor in Auckland.  
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora. Will the Government’s eventual costs include the estimated $12.5 million spent on the surveillance activities of Government agencies such as the Security Intelligence Service the Government Communications Security Bureau the Special Tactics Group the special investigation group and other agencies whose costs are not required to be made public as are costs such as legal aid?  
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I imagine—they are costs to the Crown.  
Hone Harawira 
: What compensation will the Government offer to the people of Tuhoe for the human rights violations that they suffered at the hands of the Crown and will that compensation include the return of Te Urewera to Tuhoe; if not why not?  
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The whole question of historical redress for grievances suffered by Tuhoe over the years is the subject of negotiations being conducted on behalf of the Crown by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Tuhoe and the results of that will be made known in due course.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1237] 
6. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How is the Government providing beneficiaries opportunities for work in Canterbury? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I am delighted that Minister Brownlee and I were able to announce a new joint scheme called Working InZone which will see 100 unemployed Cantabrians employed to clean up maintain and secure Government-owned residential properties in the red zone. Working InZone is a partnership between Work and Income the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority City Care in Christchurch and the Waimakariri District Council. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Can the Minister give more details about how the Working InZone scheme works? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have provided $770000 to supplement wages and to pay for mentors and supervisors equipment and on-the-job training. After 6 months they will come out with first aid and site-safety training help with literacy and numeracy and driver’s licence upgrades if needed and they will be able to link their new qualifications to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework. On top of that they will have new skills real work experience and 6 months’ wages in their pockets. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on unemployment in Christchurch? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. I have seen many reports on unemployment in Christchurch. Some I have seen predicted there would be 20000 more people on the unemployment benefit after the Christchurch earthquake. I then saw reports that there would be 24000 more people on the unemployment benefit after the earthquake. Of course there were about 5082 people on the unemployment benefit in February and that was down by 298 on the same time last year. Those reports of course came from Clayton Cosgrove who is probably the Ken Ring of the Labour Party—his predictions are so off.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1236] 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How is the Government providing beneficiaries opportunities for work in Canterbury? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I ask the Attorney-General to stop interjecting because the Minister to whom this question is being addressed is sitting on his immediate right and I doubt she can hear the question because I cannot. I call Mark Mitchell again please for question No. 6.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1236] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave pursuant to an earlier supplementary question to table four documents. The first document is a document showing that the Attorney-General intervened in the matter of Bill Wilson in the Supreme Court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document shows that? What is the source of this document? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a Official Information Act request that particular one from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document that was an Official Information Act request from the Prime Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The second document is a similar document which shows that the Attorney-General claimed to be a close friend— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to know exactly the source of the document. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an Official Information Act request again from the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So the document is from the Prime Minister’s office? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think in fact it is a memorandum to the Prime Minister but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need to know for the House the source of the document. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The source of the document is an Official Information Act request from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An Official Information Act request from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister would not be making Official Information Act requests. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an Official Information Act request to the Prime Minister. The document came from that set of documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The next document is from the Prime Minister which shows that after concerns were raised about the Attorney-General being a close friend the matter was transferred to Judith Collins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The fourth document is a document that shows that the Attorney-General’s friend— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to know the source of the document before we hear what the document might show. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In this particular case it is a press clipping showing the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going there. [ 
Interruption 
] That will be enough. This is a point of order and we have had sufficient.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1233] 
4. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How is the Government helping New Zealand technology companies access the capital and expertise they need to grow? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce to the House—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I cannot hear the answer. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There is a bit of ham acting over there. I am pleased to announce that the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund has partnered with American investor Peter Thiel and other New Zealand investors to establish the $40 million Valar Ventures Fund. This fund will help New Zealand technology companies wanting to expand into large offshore markets. These companies need not only capital but also access to the right offshore networks in those markets and to build their customer base. International investors like Peter Thiel who founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook bring capital but also considerable expertise in building companies from start-up stages through to world-leading enterprises. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Why is access to capital and expertise so important for young technology companies in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The small size of our domestic market means most businesses need to access world markets a lot earlier than similar companies in other countries. Valar Ventures Funds’ market networks and access to capital could help reduce the scale of that challenge in the companies in which it invests. Gaining better access to capital for our companies to lift their productivity and grow their exports is part of the Government’s comprehensive business growth agenda. This is a great example for positive foreign direct investment in New Zealand and the fact that an investor with Peter Thiel’s track record sees investment opportunities in this country’s technology companies is I believe a positive sign of confidence in our country’s innovation entrepreneurship and leadership. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Parliamentary Library showing the departure of New Zealanders for Australia to have reached an all-time high of over 1000 a week—no doubt the optimism the Minister quotes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I wonder how the member possibly saw that last statement to be within the Standing Orders. It is an abuse of the House. The member is perfectly at liberty to seek leave to table a document but not to make some comment about the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 21 March 
Brownlee Gerry: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 21 March 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: I apologise to other parties that I did not have time to talk about this leave prior to now. It is a simple matter. I seek leave to make a correction to a supplementary answer the Prime Minister gave to question No. 6 yesterday. In seeking that leave I think it is worth pointing out that the Prime Minister would not be able to correct it himself before 1 May because of the long autumn adjournment and his own international travel arrangements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In replying to the first supplementary question asked to question No. 6 yesterday the Prime Minister said: “an access agreement may be required.” He should have said: “a concession agreement may be required.”
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is always dangerous to work on assumption in a place like this. But can I say that the Prime Minister will table any necessary changes to delegations as promptly as possible.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Leader of the House for that information. I ask him whether it is the intention of the Government to table any interim delegations as a result of the resignation of the Hon Nick Smith. There is at least one Associate Minister; it is a question of whether the delegations continue unchanged. I am also working on the assumption that the seating positions of the members for Auckland Central and Tauranga today do not mean anything.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on 27 March the Government will look to progress a number of the bills on the Order Paper including the first readings of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. By agreement of the Business Committee the House will extend the sitting hours of Wednesday 28 March by sitting on the morning of Thursday 29 March. This is for the third readings of a number of Treaty settlement bills.
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That His Excellency’s reply be entered in the 
 Journals of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon His Excellency the Governor-General with the Address in Reply agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:  
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 
I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the Opening of the First Session of the Fiftieth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration. 
Jerry Mateparae Governor-General.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1245] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I am testing you a little bit on this. My suggestion is that you look at some previous replies to similar questions where Ministers say they stand by an answer from yesterday as opposed to that the question was answered yesterday. That then addresses and answers the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the honourable member that I will be looking at a number of matters relating to the conduct of the House today—for example the use of points of order when they are not points of order. I am conscious that things have been tense today and I want to make sure that my rulings have been appropriate. If there is a matter for me to give a considered ruling on I will do that but I am not undertaking to do so if there is no reason to do so.
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Thursday 22 March 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Address in Reply 
Presentation to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon His Excellency the Governor-General with the Address in Reply agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:  
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 
I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the Opening of the First Session of the Fiftieth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration. 
Jerry Mateparae Governor-General. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That His Excellency’s reply be entered in the 
 Journals of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on 27 March the Government will look to progress a number of the bills on the Order Paper including the first readings of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. By agreement of the Business Committee the House will extend the sitting hours of Wednesday 28 March by sitting on the morning of Thursday 29 March. This is for the third readings of a number of Treaty settlement bills.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Leader of the House for that information. I ask him whether it is the intention of the Government to table any interim delegations as a result of the resignation of the Hon Nick Smith. There is at least one Associate Minister; it is a question of whether the delegations continue unchanged. I am also working on the assumption that the seating positions of the members for Auckland Central and Tauranga today do not mean anything. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is always dangerous to work on assumption in a place like this. But can I say that the Prime Minister will table any necessary changes to delegations as promptly as possible.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 21 March 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 21 March 
[Volume:678;Page:1227] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 6 to Minister 21 March 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: I apologise to other parties that I did not have time to talk about this leave prior to now. It is a simple matter. I seek leave to make a correction to a supplementary answer the Prime Minister gave to question No. 6 yesterday. In seeking that leave I think it is worth pointing out that the Prime Minister would not be able to correct it himself before 1 May because of the long autumn adjournment and his own international travel arrangements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In replying to the first supplementary question asked to question No. 6 yesterday the Prime Minister said: “an access agreement may be required.” He should have said: “a concession agreement may be required.”
Tolley Anne: Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1050] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 On a more positive note I want to take a very short call and I want to greet the leaders of Rongowhakaata the kaumatua and the kuia here tonight and those of course who have not been able to make the journey down from Tai Rawhiti to see this culmination of years and years of work take place in the House tonight. I want to also congratulate those who have been involved in giving strong leadership through some very difficult times when it seemed that this day would never come but they have remained steadfast they have remained positive and they have remained open to discussions with the Crown no matter who was in Government. 
The history that is outlined in this bill before the House tonight the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill is not one that any one of us can be proud of but the generous acknowledgment by Rongowhakaata of the need for them to move forward has to be put on record in this House and fellow speakers have done that ahead of me. I welcome the agreement regarding their taonga their wharenui which is currently housed in Te Papa and acknowledge their desire to see that returned to its homeland and maintained and treasured with the respect that it deserves. So I am very pleased to stand in this House to welcome the beginning of recognition of Rongowhakaata and the redress that they are due. Thank you.
Vote: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure First Readings 
Vote: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure First Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1040] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 10. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Waiata
Roy Eric: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
Roy Eric: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1029] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will now put the question if no other member is seeking the call. As I was saying earlier this is a cognate debate. There are two bills—one in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson and one in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia—so there are two lots of questions. Just so that people understand the process from this point on. 
Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee.
Horan Brendan: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
Horan Brendan: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1028] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the first readings of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill and I would like to acknowledge the people who are here tonight. I would like to acknowledge the people of Ngati Rereahu Ngati Maniapoto Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and others who may be listening to or watching this debate on our bills. I say “our bills” because I am of Ngati Maniapoto descent. This legislation is to address the longstanding historical grievances of the affected iwi and hapu and it therefore has several layers of importance to me.  
I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support many of the sentiments previously conveyed. It is reassuring to the iwi and hapu affected by the settlement that after many years of consultation we are now remedying these historical injustices. That is what this legislation is about: restoring justice and closure. It is about righting historical wrongs so that together we can all move forward as a country.  
The grievances set to be rectified by this settlement stem from nearly 150 years ago. Initially the iwi were employed in the clearing of the land the felling of the mighty totara and kauri. But it is interesting that eventually the sawmill industry collapsed and one of the main drivers of this industry was pulp and paper. Sadly there has not been a new machine installed since the 1970s. The sustained collapse of the sawmill industry forced the continued migration of a large number of hapu to the cities in order to find work to support their families. This settlement sets out to restore rights for these disaffected iwi to reconnect with their wahi tapu and to restore what is owed to them financially spiritually and culturally.  
Traditionally Maraeroa A and B Blocks were considered a kono kai—a food basket—but also a healing centre for gathering harakeke as the honourable member from Labour mentioned earlier. Harakeke is one of the great healing plants of Maori. So this area was held in common by these iwi conveying a bond of mutual understanding and benefit. With this settlement set to be approved we hope that these resources will enable those members in the urban diaspora communities to once again reconnect with the region and recognise it as being an important part of their cultural and spiritual turangawaewae.  
He kura whenua tiakina mana koe e ora ai a-tinana a-wairua. The land is precious: nurture it and in good time it will nurture you physically and spiritually. In conclusion I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the first reading of this legislation. Kia ora.
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1021] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I know the last two speakers Mr Finlayson and Mr Clendon and respect their points of view on division and that. Can I assure you that having worked with the last three groups of iwi Labour is supportive of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and we will support the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill as it goes all the way through. I think it is important for us to understand that people do not differentiate in this Whare here just on numbers or letters that they get. They have to live through the issues that are relevant to the hau kainga. I just want to say that with all due respect and I accept what my learned colleague over there was saying. So we will be supporting this bill and the other bills. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.  
Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill with amendment; the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill with amendment; and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1020] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Again there is a very technical Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 10. It is required for the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill to make amendments to certain transitional and other arrangements in Part 4 of the bill. In particular amendments are required to clarify the status of the Porou Ariki Trust after inclusion of the trust in Part 4. Those changes are to clarify the status of the trust and they are included in amendments to clauses 129 132 and 151. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses a number of other technical matters that have been identified but nothing of great substance.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1019] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Just very briefly on Supplementary Order Paper 13 that is a couple of pages but really it boils down to a couple of propositions. First the earthquake slip conservation area is now identified in the Department of Conservation’s lands registry as the earthquake slip marginal strip and the Supplementary Order Paper reflects that name change. The Supplementary Order Paper also includes a number of technical amendments to update drafting and promote standardisation with corresponding provisions in other Treaty settlement legislation.
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1018] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to explain the Supplementary Order Paper which deals with clause 36. It contains a transitional process to extend the vision and strategy to include the Upper Waipa River which is contingent on what at the time of drafting was a future event namely the coming into being of the Waikato River Authority and the initial review of the vision and strategy by that authority. It is no longer workable in that form because the river authority has come into being and in the meantime has completed its initial review on the vision and strategy hence the need for the Supplementary Order Paper.
Turei Metiria: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1017] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call. The Green Party will be supporting this Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill. My colleague David Clendon was on the Maori Affairs Committee I understand when this bill was being discussed there. We support the bill and we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers but I do think it is worthwhile putting on the record for the House that there are still some ongoing issues with this settlement. There are still concerns that some iwi and some hapu are excluded from or do not yet have access to or a seat on the River Forum for example which is responsible for developing the documents on how the rivers are to be cared for and managed in the future. I think that is an issue for those who are excluded from responsibility for decision making over areas over rohe. I note too that there were concerns from the submitters about the extent to which the Rangitaiki River document as incorporated into regional plans is at a lesser status than that in the Waikato River settlement. This one is related to that I understand and there was some disappointment that it will not have the same status as the Waikato River planning documents do.  
One of the major issues for iwi that arises again and again—and we will continue to see it through settlements—is the extent to which they are separated out from the actual decision-making that happens over the environmental issues that are pertinent to them. In this case it is the rivers. They are entitled to be decision makers over what happens. In this legislation in this settlement you can see how layers of bureaucracy have been put between these iwi and hapu and their right to be decision makers over their own rivers. In part that is expressed in the disappointment that their river document will not have the same status as the Waikato one. The regional council will be able to recognise and provide for it but is not required to take it into account in its planning. It is not part of the regional plans as a first step if you like for the decision-making process.  
I just wanted to place it on the record that despite these concerns the Green Party will support the bill. We support the iwi and hapu having further engagement with the River Forum and will continue to fight to have their voices heard at the decision-making table rather than as separated-out layers underneath that. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Ngati Manawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper6. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1017] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 There are two Supplementary Order Papers. They have been approved by the iwi. The first one is the technical Supplementary Order Paper 6 required to break up the omnibus structure of the bill into two bills. The second one Supplementary Order Paper 7 is required to correct several minor drafting and technical errors and also to clarify the intent of the provisions of the deed of settlement in respect of the settlement of the historical claims. The jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal is preserved but it is amended to ensure that the tribunal can complete its reporting on the Te Urewera inquiry and make findings but not recommendations on the claims relating to Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare.
Jones Shane: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1014] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch for this 5-minute contribution. This is one of the signature policies that clearly distinguishes our approach to the stewardship of State assets from that of our colleagues on the other side of the House. In fact these are legacy assets and it is a shame that we have been unable to turn them into something akin to a legacy fund or a sovereign fund that would continue to generate revenue continue to generate dividends to meet the obvious costs that the State does face.
O'Connor Damien: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1011] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the Salvation Army called  
The Growing Divide 
 which may— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! Is this in the public domain? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well it will not be tabled. He cannot seek leave. This is a split call between Mana and Labour. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am calling a member. I will ring the bell with a minute to go.
Upston Louise: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure First Readings 
Upston Louise: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure First Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1029] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the first speaker from each party to speak on the cognate bills for up to 15 minutes with a warning bell at 10. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Ryall Tony: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1016] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be reported back to the House by 16 July 2012. 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Eric: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
Roy Eric: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — First Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1028] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will put the questions. If members wish to give some attention to the Order Paper they will see this has been a cognate debate— 
Brendan Horan 
: Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Brendan Horan are you seeking the call? You are seeking a call to speak? I have started to put the question but if the member is seeking the call— 
Brendan Horan 
: Yes I am seeking the call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Brendan Horan.
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1018] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Nga Wai o Maniopoto (Waipa River) Bill to be dealt with as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:988] 
11. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What updates can he give on new Defence Force capability? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that tomorrow sees the official launch of the NH90 helicopter which represents a significant upgrade for our military capability. The New Zealand Defence Force will have eight NH90s to replace the Iroquois helicopter fleet. These new NH90 helicopters are the most advanced and capable helicopter that the air force has ever had. 
John Hayes 
: How will the new NH90s improve the capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The NH90s will considerably improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s ability to conduct military counter-terrorism disaster relief search and rescue and other operations. There will also be better integration with our key defence partners especially Australia and they offer a marked improvement in range and endurance over the existing Iroquois helicopters. This milestone illustrates that we are delivering on the plan laid out in the defence white paper. Like other defence forces around the world we are reprioritising our resources to provide up-to-date capability for a 21st century Defence Force. The NH90 is an outstanding example of the modernisation process so far.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1016] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.