edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18209] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(j)to build the health and well-being of the communities of greater Christchurch.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclauses after subclause (2): 
(2A)The community forum will include the chair or a member nominated by the chair of each community board from each Canterbury authority where a community board exists. 
(2B)The Minister in inviting persons to participate in the forum will include representatives nominated by the following organisations: 
(a)the Christchurch City Council: 
(b)the Selwyn District Council: 
(c)the Waimakariri District Council: 
(d)CanCERN: 
(e)representatives from other affected communities; 
(f)representatives from the business health education heritage and union sectors.; 
to omit from subclause (3) “6 times a year” and substitute “monthly”; and 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)Within 2 weeks following every meeting the community forum must publish in the  
Gazette 
 a report on the Minister and chief executive’s performance in meeting community engagement requirements.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18217] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)No recovery plan shall be approved without an impact assessment being completed to assess the social cultural environmental and community impacts.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18222] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 73 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18188] 
4. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What results are being achieved from the Government’s commitment to reduce the level of drug use in our prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise that the number of prisoners testing positive for drugs from random drug-testing has fallen to an all-time low. In 1998 when drug testing was introduced 34 percent of randomly tested prisoners returned positive results. However for the financial year to date only 6 percent of prisoners have returned positive results. This drop is a direct result of legislation passed by this House and of the vigilance of corrections staff. We have brought in new laws to increase the search powers of corrections officers and to introduce new offences for contraband. We have also enabled the department to put in cellphone jamming and to monitor prisoners’ phone calls. As a result of all these measures we are now seeing some great results. 
Paul Quinn 
: What else is the Department of Corrections doing to address the drug and alcohol dependencies of prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: About two-thirds of prisoners enter jail in New Zealand with drug and alcohol problems so stopping drugs entering prison is only one element of the department’s strategy. The Department of Corrections is also focused on helping prisoners to take ownership of their problems and break their dependency on alcohol and drugs. The department is doubling the number of prisoners who are able to receive drug and alcohol treatment to 1000 by the end of this year. I have opened two new drug treatment units in Otago and Auckland and a third unit will open in Whanganui Prison this year. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to rehabilitation.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18187] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a new point of order because we are not going to waste more time in the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will waste very little time. There is one point of your ruling that I think I would like to relitigate. I am not—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further interjections from the Government benches. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not going to comment on your final ruling Mr Speaker which of course is correct—that it is within the realm of the Government to have late Supplementary Order Papers if it likes. I think though you said that it was not unusual for this to happen. I think it is not unique but it certainly is not a normal or recommended practice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member is making—that it is obviously not an ideal practice. I fully accept that. Perhaps my language should have included the fact that it is not common. But the practice happens from time to time. I fully accept that it is not ideal. I think the House has taken sufficient time. The fact that a Supplementary Order Paper has been made available to members prior to its tabling is I believe helpful to the House. I am advised the Supplementary Order Paper has now been tabled. 
Question time resumed.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18187] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a resolution to this problem that might meet with the agreement of the whole House. Leave could be sought—and the Greens would be prepared to seek leave—to make a decision that this bill would not be completed today in urgency and that urgency would be lifted. We would extend the state of emergency for 2 or 3 more weeks and complete the final stages of the bill in the next sitting period. I think that would meet with the agreement of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not take the time of the House today in debating this matter. Of course the member realises that the Government is extremely unlikely to agree to such leave so that is an extremely unlikely solution. I suggest to members that the House will be back in Committee shortly after question time and the Committee will have the opportunity to consider its own debate from that point on. As Speaker I cannot predetermine any of that.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18186] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The dilemma we have is that Parliament has an inability to scrutinise that the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted to put it as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery did unless we have the official document. I just say that the total timetable for this legislation as with any legislation in the name of the Minister is in his hands. We were provided—indeed after I requested it last night—with a summary document and I am grateful for that. The difficulty with this is that firstly it has no parliamentary status and secondly it does not give the wording the definitions etc. allowing proper scrutiny of it. The dilemma I face is that we have now been told that this may be the document so we have about an hour and a half of total time to debate this. We have spent about 3 hours talking about everything bar the Supplementary Order Paper because it has not been available. This is a critical bill and we want to insist—
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18186] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I think it is fair that we have a proper representation of what has occurred here. Firstly the Labour Party asked for a committee process to be held and the Government agreed to that. Submissions were called for from people and admittedly they had a limited amount of time for submissions. But those submissions were made in good faith and they were heard in good faith by the Local Government and Environment Committee members. The recommendations that came from those submitters were provided to the Government late yesterday after the select committee finished hearing from me and officials at about 8 p.m. last evening. 
Officials then worked until the small hours of the morning until 4.30 this morning to prepare a table which is sitting in front of the Clerk at the moment and which was made available to members this morning indicating on each of the recommendations from each of the submitters what the Government’s view was on those recommendations. There is no desire here to do anything other than accommodate what people have said if possible and the consequence of that is that from 7.30 this morning the drafting team has been working to put what is in that table into the Supplementary Order Paper—that is in the language of the law—and making sure that all t’s are crossed and all i’s are dotted. 
There is no desire by the Government to do anything tricky. I am about to send a note to a member on the other side who wanted to know what was in here that might not have come from submitters. I can indicate that around clause 40 there has been a wider consideration to make sure that obligations that should fall on one party do so and not on the general taxpayer. In the end I think it is fair to say that every effort has been made to accommodate the suggestions made by the people who made submissions. I am sorry that the drafters could not work fast enough but the officials have not let us down. The timetable could have been moved in a different way but we did not get resolution on some of those issues last week and we are in the situation we are in. But I do not believe that this House’s scrutiny of the recommendations from submitters to the select committee process has been impeded by the arrival of the Supplementary Order Paper at this late point. What was provided to Mr Cosgrove and his colleagues a few moments ago was the document that has gone to the printers. It is being printed and will be placed on the Table of the House as soon as the printing process is completed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member the Hon Clayton Cosgrove further because of that long intervention.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18185] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am in uncharted waters. I apologise for interrupting question time. My point of order pertains to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill which is before the House and I raise this issue because of the pressure of time. The advice I seek is about this matter. I received on my desk a draft copy of a Government Supplementary Order Paper some 3 hours and 10 minutes after the Committee stage began. I have taken advice from the Clerk and the Clerk has confirmed that an official copy of the Supplementary Order Paper has not been provided to the Clerk’s Office yet so I presume the copy I have has draft status. 
The question is simply about this: given that the agreed timetable for this bill is that it moves back into the Committee stage directly after question time—and one would assume that would be in the next hour or thereabouts—and concludes at 6 p.m. with the third reading that provides the House with less than an hour possibly half an hour to 1 hour if the voting that would to occur to initiate the third reading is included. That is all the time that members would have to scrutinise this Supplementary Order Paper. The status of this document is draft at this point. My question is simply this: what avenues do members have to properly scrutinise a 10-page Supplementary Order Paper in less than an hour probably half an hour to 40 minutes in order to do justice to this important bill?
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18210] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of “responsible entity” by inserting “Canterbury District Health Board” after “Public Service”.
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18158] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 The document that the member refers to makes it very clear what the Government is going to put into the Supplementary Order Paper and there are people drafting that Supplementary Order Paper at the present time. But let us not go about the pretence that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is essential to the business of this House in dealing with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. It is essential that the House look at the aspects of any Supplementary Order Paper once it is laid on the Table. But if the Opposition wants to suspend the debate then we will simply withdraw the Supplementary Order Paper offer and carry on with the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. The original point of order was from the junior Opposition whip who asked that the Committee be suspended because of the absence at this stage of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. That cannot happen. The Committee cannot be suspended; it can only report progress. The Minister is the person who can report progress and ask that the Committee sit again presently. That is the Minister’s prerogative. If we go back to Standing Order 173 which the member Steve Chadwick used in the point of order we see that it states: “(1) The chairperson may temporarily suspend the proceedings of the committee—(a) in the case of any grave disorder arising in committee or (b) in accordance with a decision of the House or a determination of the Business Committee or (c) in the event of an emergency situation.” That does not apply. In regard to the tabling of a Supplementary Order Paper—and I hear what the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said—I know that there is some delay and the Minister has identified that but it is the Government’s prerogative to table a Supplementary Order Paper at any stage. The Minister identified that it is being worked on. It was agreed at the beginning of the Committee stage that this is a wide-ranging debate on all parts and there are unlimited calls which is a departure from the normal process that is adopted. It is an opportunity for all members to participate in a wide-ranging debate even though we do not have the Supplementary Order Paper. I rule accordingly that the point of order from the junior whip does not stand.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18194] 
8. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What recent announcement has he made on improving New Zealand’s biosecurity protection? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yesterday I was pleased to launch FarmsOnLine which is New Zealand’s first comprehensive database of rural properties for use in biosecurity responses. The $8.4 million of funding allocated to develop FarmsOnLine demonstrates the Government’s serious commitment to biosecurity readiness. This initiative will significantly improve the ability of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to rapidly respond to a biosecurity emergency. The Waiheke foot-and-mouth scare clearly demonstrated the need for this type of information to be quickly available. FarmsOnLine now delivers that need. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Shane Ardern 
: What is the role of FarmsOnLine? Listen up I say to Mr Jones. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: FarmsOnLine for the first time gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry a comprehensive online database of rural properties enabling instant access to information such as farm location ownership and land use. I encourage all farmers and lifestyle block owners to go online to see what additional information they can provide to the database. The more information the ministry has the better it will be able to respond to a biosecurity incursion. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How can the public or the pork industry have any confidence in the Minister’s management of biosecurity threats when his ministry has decided to allow imports of uncooked pig meat from countries where the pig disease porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome is endemic even though the industry has produced a rigorous scientifically based risk assessment that contradicts the ministry’s decision that any risk is low? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The issue referred to by the member is a decision made by the director-general. In making the decision I understand it was his opinion that the level of risk was so low that an import ban could not be justified on scientific grounds. My office has informed me that a judicial review is very likely on this matter. I therefore do not think it is appropriate for me to comment further.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18216] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following subclause: 
(3)The process for the development of a Recovery Plan must include 1 or more public hearings as determined by the chief executive at which members of the public may appear and must be heard.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18219] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(6)The council or council organisation may appeal to the High Court against a decision of a Minister under subsection (1).
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18159] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I think with all due respect to the concerns that are being raised by the member Clayton Cosgrove that nothing will be in the Supplementary Order Paper that is not in the bill other than the rewritten compensation clause which he knows was part of a discussion at a committee last evening. The amendments are simple they are straightforward and there is no attempt to come up with anything that is outside what is stated in the document I have here. Given the fact that officials worked through until the late hours of this morning putting this document together and checking it as they went with opinion from the Government it is outrageous to suggest that they should be able to take a 21-page document— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Chairperson you asked me to explain. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you are getting into debating points. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I am not; I am explaining what is happening because we have had a lot— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the Minister to sit down. The question was about the timing of this. We are now getting into debating the merits of the points. This is not a debate; this is a point of order. The Minister explained the situation and what is happening; we have taken that that is what the position is and that is where we will leave it. We are moving on with the debate.
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18182] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I pay tribute to Lianne Dalziel’s very impassioned speech just a moment ago on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and I want to record my admiration for what she has done in the eastern suburbs. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18159] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If this is not a new point of order— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I ask through you then Mr Chairperson whether the Minister could please out of courtesy contact whomever he needs to and advise us approximately when the Supplementary Order Paper will be available. I raise this because at 1 o’clock as you know we will have to stop for the luncheon adjournment. When we come back after question time there is likely to be about half an hour before the agreed time to proceed to the third reading. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have asked for the Minister to respond to that question. I will ask the Hon Gerry Brownlee to comment.
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18159] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It needs to be; otherwise you are trifling with the Chair. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not trifle with the Chair. This is a matter of critical importance. There is no more important piece of legislation that I can recall. The difficulty we are in is this. You are right: proceedings can proceed. The difficulty is that we are in a situation that is slightly illogical. Yes it is a wide-ranging debate but I cannot recall a time—certainly not in my time but there are people here who have been here for longer than I—when we have had a Committee stage like this. The central point of the Committee stage is to debate the Government’s changes to the legislation. We are now almost 45 minutes in and we do not have the ability to do our job which is to scrutinise those changes. I say to you that this is an illogical situation. I appeal to your good nature and your good sense. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. There is nothing to stop the continuation of the debate on the bill because the bill is before us. When the Supplementary Order Paper is lodged that is a matter for individual debates on certain aspects of what the Supplementary Order Paper may contain. That does not interfere with the process of the Committee stage of the bill. On that basis we are continuing. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not taking any more points on this. We are moving on.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18213] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 7:  
7AJoint community and cross-party forum 
(1)The Minister must arrange for the cross-party parliamentary forum and the community forum to meet together with the Minister. 
(2)The Minister must ensure that the meeting is held at least 6 monthly. 
(3)One of the purposes of the meeting is to provide feedback to the Minister on the community participation in the recovery effort led by CERA.
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18158] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to preface my comments by giving some context to my colleague’s request. There is no delay by the Opposition. The delay here is that the Government has not produced the critical document that is needed for us to proceed. There is no attempt from Labour members to delay proceedings. If the document arrives we are back on deck. I will raise an issue that the Government whip raised. Yes we do have an informal document that has no parliamentary standing that gives an indication. It states “agreed” and “noted”—and nobody knows what “noted” actually means—but it has no official standing. In order for the document to proceed to the Committee stage the Government must produce its amendments to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. We have had commitments on this and I think it would be illogical and absurd if this debate moved ahead to the point where we were debating Opposition amendments but we were not aware of what the Government proposed to do. I want to say for those in the press gallery and others that there has been no attempt by Labour members at any point to delay this bill. Our problem is that we are meant to be debating the Government Supplementary Order Paper and its associated amendments from us and we have difficulty doing so when it does not exist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have made some fair points there and I invite the Minister to say a few words.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18209] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended and the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments as amended and the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)to enable community participation in the recovery of affected communities in order to promote a focused timely enduring and expedited recovery.
Goodhew Jo: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18157] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 In reference to the particular situation I would like to add my comments. We are having a wide-ranging debate in the Committee stage with no limit on what can be discussed. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is on the Table before us and we can discuss what was raised at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We have an indication from members during this Committee stage of what they agree with and what they do not agree with. As is able to happen at any time a Supplementary Order Paper can be tabled at any stage of Committee without in fact the whole Committee having had the opportunity to discuss it.
Chadwick Steve: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18157] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. We are in a very difficult situation here and I wonder whether we could consider invoking Standing Order 173 to suspend the Committee of the whole House. We do not have the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. It has not been tabled. The Chair quite rightly said we are running ahead of time but it has now been 25 minutes and we still do not have the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. There has been some legitimate debate from members about amendments but we are in a very strange situation without the Supplementary Order Paper before us. I wonder whether we should consider—without invoking disorder—suspending the Committee of the whole House. We think the Opposition is placed in a grave situation. I ask for your clarification.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses after clause 4:  
4ADefinition of Recovery 
Recovery means planning for the restoration and rehabilitation of the social economic natural and built environments of greater Christchurch taking into account the specific needs of the CBD the rural sector and the affected residential suburbs. 
4BDefinition of Community Participation 
Community Participation means openly engaging with the affected communities in partnership with key stakeholders to— 
(a)involve local people in joint learning and public decision making; 
(b)capitalise on local culture and knowledge: 
(c)mobilise local capacity to rebuild: 
(d)enable local communities to make choices that build safe and sustainable communities: 
(e)secure the positive attributes of the community and discard the negative elements and thereby entrench resilience.
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18151] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a lot of time at this point but I will speak again during the process of this Committee stage. I want to indicate that there is a document being provided to parties indicating the Government’s position on a number of recommendations that came through from the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is in addition to a number of recommendations previously considered which were supplied by Labour prior to the select committee process. I know there are other Supplementary Order Papers coming from members this afternoon. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that gives life to the agreed parts of the document being provided will be with the Committee as soon as possible; officials are working on it at the moment. We are some minutes ahead of where I thought we might be at this stage. There is no intention to try to slow that process. That Supplementary Order Paper needs to be properly written and that is why that document is being provided to give those early indications.
Goodhew Jo: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18151] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question and for members to have unlimited calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18151] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18129] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a third time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—Circulation of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:671;Page:18187] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a further point of order? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes very short. I want therefore to ask you whether you are in a position to advise us whether it is appropriate or good parliamentary practice to have a 3 or 4-hour debate specifically dealing with a Government Supplementary Order Paper when there is no Government Supplementary Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that Committees can start Committee stage debates prior to a Supplementary Order Paper being available. There is nothing unusual about that. 
Hon David Parker 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is nothing unusual about that. The member is shaking his head; he is entitled to do that. But the member raising the point of order will understand the situation—that the Government has tried to enable submitters to have input into the legislation. Time frames are such that they are tight. But the Committee stage is in the hands of the Committee. The time the Committee may take to consider amendments is in its hands and as Speaker I cannot interfere in that. There is no further point in pursuing the matter today. I suggest to the member though that the fact that he has been provided with a copy of the proposed Supplementary Order Paper prior to its tabling is actually helpful not counter-productive.
Roy Heather: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Roy Heather: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18139] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. I have participated in the process at the Local Government and Environment Committee for the hearing of evidence as we have gone through this bill under urgency. When it comes to principles the ACT Party would not normally be in favour of the broad sweeping powers we see in this bill and under normal circumstances we would raise a large number of concerns. But these are not normal circumstances; we have had a terrible coinciding of principle and circumstance as a result of a terrible terrible natural disaster. We have heard not just as part of the proceedings of this particular bill but since the first earthquake on 4 September of the situation the people in Canterbury are facing and will face for a large number of years yet. Although I was not there for the particular submission one submitter yesterday said that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures and that is exactly what this Parliament is faced with in this particular instance. 
The ACT Party is supporting the provisions in this bill. I particularly enjoyed the select committee process when we had robust discussion on a large number of the clauses with varying views being put on the table. I had some concerns as I know that Labour members also did about some process issues. I felt it was unfortunate that technical advice was not quite as forthcoming as it may have been in the first instance. It is difficult to make good decisions when we do not have the availability of all the advice we need. However we worked our way through those issues I believe and I think that it was very good of the Minister to make a submission to the select committee. That certainly helped with our working our way through many of the provisions. I do not want to talk in detail about the clauses. I think there has been plenty of discussion already about them and the Committee stage is the appropriate time to have those discussions and debates. 
But I come back always to broad principles. It is incumbent on us to do our very best for the people of Christchurch. Although this is a little outside the scope of the bill I suppose I tell the House that the ACT Party’s view is that in order to fix Christchurch we will need to fix New Zealand and that we will all look with great interest at what happens in the Budget. New Zealand is facing difficult circumstances quite aside from the natural disasters we have suffered in the last year. The ACT Party will have a lot to say particularly about making wise fiscal decisions for the country in order to be in very good shape to help Christchurch and Canterbury to the best of our ability. 
I say again that the ACT Party supports these measures. Under normal circumstances we would have a lot more to say in a negative sense about them but I come back to the point that extraordinary times do indeed call for extraordinary measures.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18219] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clauses 31 and 32 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses.
Wagner Nicky: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18234] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and look forward to the recovery and rebuild of Christchurch.
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18129] 
Tuesday 12 April 2011 
( 
continued on Thursday 14 April 2011 
) 
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a third time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18158] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have made your ruling. It is your ruling. I would just ask for some indulgence and some advice. Standing Order 173 talks about “grave disorder” and clearly there is not grave disorder and there will not be grave disorder. The difficulty I suppose is that you could characterise disorder in a number of ways. The disorder that we find ourselves in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No we are not debating what “grave disorder” is in respect of Standing Order 173. I have ruled that this debate will continue. We are awaiting the Supplementary Order Paper. Everyone is awaiting it. That does not stop the proceedings of the Committee stage and we are moving forward on that.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18221] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 73 be agreed to.
Gilmore Aaron: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18238] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak last on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. For me as the youngest Canterbury member of Parliament I look forward to this bill being implemented over the next number of years and my home city being rebuilt. This is an extraordinary bill that gives extraordinary powers to an extraordinary man. I think that in years to come—in many years to come—when we sit in this House again in 5 years’ time we will see that my city is on the path and not just the path of rebuilding and when sewers roads homes schools and power supplies are repaired because of the Government’s framework that this bill put in place. I look forward to seeing those results. 
We heard the previous speaker Brendon Burns talk about community consultation. It was a pleasure to be with the Prime Minister this morning in one of the hard-hit suburbs of Christchurch where over 200 people were talking about some of the issues they are facing and the concerns they have as a result of this bill. There are some concerns that exist in the community—many of them were put in people’s minds by Opposition members and I think that is unfortunate. This bill will not ruin people’s lives; it is the Government’s framework to allow our city to be rebuilt in the way that New Zealand and Canterbury in particular wants it to be. 
I look forward to sitting in this House in 5 years’ time and seeing the fruits of this bill: results so that we can actually flush our toilets drink our water turn our lights on and off live in our homes that are not leaky live in homes that have no cracks or breaks have roads that are flat and our kids can go to school from 8.30 to 3 like normal kids do up and down the country. I look forward to being back in the central business district where our business people can sit and work in their businesses like they used to do prior to September and prior to 22 February. I look forward to seeing thousands of tourists coming back to our city and seeing the beautiful buildings we have and enjoying the good company of Cantabrians. I look forward to seeing the Crusaders and the All Blacks playing again at the AMI Stadium or Jade Stadium as I would rather call it or Lancaster Park as that member may recall and enjoying the great things that have occurred in Christchurch. 
This bill will allow the Government’s framework for those things to happen and that has to be a good thing. The people of Canterbury are tough we are resilient we are stoic but as we say we need a bit of help. This legislation will put in place a bit of help to help our good friends in Canterbury wherever they come from whatever their political persuasion whatever side of town they live in to be able to get to the situation where they can look back and say yes the Government put in place a framework to help them and to rebuild their city. I think that is a wonderful thing. Thank you.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18215] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 15 be agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18160] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I had asked a question and I thank you for facilitating that. The question was whether the Minister could give us an indication of the timing given that we will have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you cannot demand a response to that. The Minister— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am asking; I am not demanding. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. The Minister had indicated the process. You cannot demand or ask when the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled. He has given a very clear indication of what the process is and that is where we are leaving it.