edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fenton Darien: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:878] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is a responsible Government bill. Although the Opposition would have us believe that this Government has no interest in the primary production sector here we have a very very responsible bill. It is a modern bill that provides for a very important profession in our country. Can I say that I know a little bit about vets. Members may not believe this but in my many varied careers in the past I once worked as a vet nurse. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That explains everything! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I was looking after cats I say to the member. It might explain how I deal with him. I appreciate the member’s thanks for the Government bringing this bill to the House to go through all its stages. 
Hon David Carter 
: You took your time. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member should be grateful that we are doing it under urgency. I think it is wonderful. The vets out there will be very happy that it will be passed by Christmas. 
This bill modernises legislation that was first enacted in 1994. It includes the qualification requirements for vets to be recognised overseas it updates the registration processes and categories and it deals with disciplinary powers. I congratulate members both past and present of the Primary Production Committee. I look forward to hearing from Mr Woolerton about the parrot and I commend this bill to the House to go through all its stages.
Woolerton R Doug: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:871] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill but I just want to stand and congratulate Mr Worth and Mr Tisch. Every morning when I wake up I thank God that there are such people as Mr Worth and Mr Tisch in this world and specifically in this Parliament. I could not bear to do the wonderful work that they do such as going through all of these bills word by word and clause by clause. I think they do a wonderful job. I think the rest of us in this Parliament who are more generalist in nature and dare I say it have a much more positive outlook on life than they do thank them sincerely for the work they do. I just could not let this time go by without putting that on the record. I thank those two gentlemen. I appreciate the fact that they are here. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:870] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will just finalise the debate for National on the title and commencement date of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. One of the important pieces of legislation that is provided for in this bill which I did briefly mention is the confirmation of the rates of New Zealand superannuation coming under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and Social Security Act 1964. I just make the comment that if the rates of superannuation are not changed then we are in a very dire strait. Many many New Zealanders would be disaffected by that and it would cause hardship. So the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 which was made on 7 March 2005 is validated and confirmed by this bill. When we come back to the title of the bill we find it actually ties in nicely with that regulation. 
That order increased most benefits and pensions in accord with the all groups consumer price index which increased by 2.7 percent. In particular the order increased the amounts of funeral grants and increased the widows benefit invalids benefit unemployment benefit sickness benefit domestic purposes benefit child disability benefit disability benefit independent youth-related emergency benefit and the hospital rate. We are confirming and validating a very important regulation today and that is why the title of this bill encompasses those provisions. The maximum amount of income that a blind beneficiary could earn while still receiving a subsidy was also increased as were certain asset and income limits. The order also increased the rates of New Zealand superannuation entitlements. 
In bringing the debate to a close for National I say we support this legislation. We supported it in the first reading in the select committee stage and through the Committee stage and we will also support it in the third reading.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:869] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 If I could try to respond briefly my understanding is that the conscientious objection clause and the levy issue there relates to similar provisions in the Commodity Levies Act and therefore has been carried over into that. In terms of the primary issue raised by Mr Tisch I think it is very important where the Government is imposing levies creating new levies or increasing levies and where it is increasing things like superannuation and benefits that have very significant fiscal costs that Parliament retains its ultimate right of control over those decisions made by the Government. The Government cannot keep coming back for primary legislation every time these kinds of things are required. However it is important that the Government is simply able to impose them without reference back. On occasions in the past separate legislation has been required for that confirmation. It is now the practice and has been for some years to have a single Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. 
I am afraid I cannot advise the member about the possibility of the South Island being infested by the varroa mite. Clearly no level of regulation could prevent that from happening. Indeed there was hope that a line could be drawn somewhere around Taupo but the varroa bee mite was able to cross that line and so it spread. As always with those kinds of pests once they are here we can only manage them. They are not able to be eliminated because they quickly become widespread throughout the country. 
The member raised one other issue I think which has escaped my mind— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I mentioned trout. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue of trout—yes indeed. The view is commonly held that if trout were able to be farmed that would somehow reduce the value of freshwater angling for trout in the same way that if—in a strange and unreal world that one could not possibly imagine—one could buy tinned tuna that would clearly remove the ambitions of people who want to go deep-sea fishing for wild tuna. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:863] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
.
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:863] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for us to proceed forthwith to the third reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to proceed to the third reading. Is there any objection? There is not.
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:860] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. As I said at the first reading the bill is needed to ensure that persons and the Crown who because of a technicality have inadvertently not complied with the law are protected from civil action. I have to say that the National member for Taranaki – King Country blunders around where angels fear to tread. I mean in 1993 1995 and 1998 was I or any member on this side of the House in charge of this matter? I do not think so. 
Shane Ardern 
: What was the Opposition doing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Oh I see it was the Opposition’s fault. I just missed that. National was governing but it was our fault! I see; that is how it works. 
I say to New Zealand First that the Port of Greymouth is approved under the original process in the Act so that does not need to be mentioned in the schedule. For the Maori Party’s benefit I say that a close analysis of the spraying programme in west Auckland for painted apple moth does not show any conclusive connection between the rates of reported medical conditions and the spraying itself. 
As a consequence of non-approval of ports of first arrival it was an offence for example when persons in charge of a craft failed to enter a designated port of entry or when uncleared goods were permitted to leave a craft and did not proceed to a biosecurity control area. It is possible that persons arriving in New Zealand would be deemed not to have proceeded through a biosecurity control area and that port operators represented a port as “approved” when no approval was actually given. So all those unintended consequences flowed on. 
The bill is needed—I think all members and parties have indicated that. I recommend that the bill proceed as quickly as possible through the House.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:845] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I had the opportunity to be part of the Education and Science Committee when it deliberated on this bill in the last Parliament. My good friend Brian Donnelly chaired the committee and I think we did a good job. We received a lot of submissions from the industry scientists and environmental people. I think this bill is really good in terms of promoting business the environment and the health and safety of people in our community. This bill really relates to group standards which are something the industry has been asking for for quite some time. It puts together a number of substances that in particular the farming community and the industry use. I think it will reduce the cost to the Government and the industry reduce barriers to innovation and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people. I am delighted that the industry which the Government consulted supports this bill. 
Very briefly the group standards will reduce cost to the industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to technical controls and regulations. With that I support this bill.
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:841] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to make one or two points in reference to the comments that have been made. First Mr Eric Roy claimed that when the 1996 bill—under Simon Upton and the previous National Government—went through New Zealand First was just a twinkle in Winston Peters’ eye. In fact New Zealand First had as many members at that particular time as ACT now has. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Not very many. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No there were not very many at that particular time. It was under first past the post. It had two members. I would like to remind the Committee that half of New Zealand First at that time now sits amongst the National Party. He was probably the member who was looking at Simon Upton’s bill at that particular time. He never really was one who did his homework very well. Therefore he probably let some of the things through that we now have to fix up with this legislation. 
Paul Hutchison did make a point and it is a point that I will affirm. He made the point that this legislative programme has been too slow. I think that is correct. I believe that we are dealing with some very important matters here. A programme has been set out and the fact that we have had to put through Supplementary Order Papers purely and simply to comply with the law is really a symptom of bad management under the previous administration and the previous Minister. I think I made that point earlier and I confirm what Paul Hutchison said. The process has not been managed in a timely fashion or in a fashion that gives priority to the safety of New Zealanders under the original agreement and framework. I hope that any further legislation that comes forward on this matter and on these issues will be advanced in a much more timely fashion than this legislation has been advanced. Almost everything that the National members have said in this debate has been balderdash with the exception of that one particular point regarding the need for timely advancement of this legislation. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:837] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 National members are making a big play on the cost of this legislation to farmers. I want to raise one or two issues in the submission that came from Federated Farmers to the Education and Science Committee in terms of this bill. The first one which I shall read from the submission is: “In general Federated Farmers supports the provision of a group standard approval mechanism.” That is the basis of this legislation. So I really have to question some of the points that members on the other side of the Chamber are raising. I will go on to quote from another part of the submission remembering of course that the 1996 legislation—which for Sandra Goudie’s information is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—was brought in by Simon Upton who was National member. 
This is what Federated Farmers have to say: “Practical implementation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 has been fraught with difficulties. Federated Farmers has supported changes to the Act that helped to remove constraints and minimise the unintended cost to business and Government and the barriers to innovation.” This includes both written and oral submissions in support of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. In other words Federated Farmers are supporting this legislation because it reduces the compliance costs that were implicit in the original Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act brought in by National. I need to make the point that representatives of Federated Farmers came to the select committee and said that this legislation is good legislation because it fixes up some of the mistakes that National had in its 1996 legislation. 
National members really have to start considering that they mucked it up in 1996 and that that is why Federated Farmers are supporting this amendment bill. If compliance costs were being added by this bill they would be voting against it. They are voting for it because they know that it is reducing the compliance costs that were created by Simon Upton in his original 1996 legislation. Everything we are hearing from National members on that side of the Chamber has to be questioned because of the fact that it means nothing at all. 
I make one extra point which is about the on-farm compliance cost of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as calculated by Federated Farmers in their submission. It states: “The total set-up cost for compliance with the HASNO Act”—brought in by National under Simon Upton—“is calculated to be nearly $105 million which averages $2230 per farm in set-up costs but does not include any ongoing cost from 2007 onwards.” That is what that lot did when they were in control of this nation and now they are complaining about efforts to try to fix up their mess.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:833] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:832] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 20A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:827] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank Dr Hutchison for the contribution he has made and the assistance of his party in correcting or bringing to fruition this legislation—which of course was introduced by his Government in 1996 with Nick Smith as Minister. So it is appropriate that National is helping us to make the corrections and policy adjustments needed to meet the transfer deadline of 30 June. 
In relation to the question raised earlier about polychlorinated biphenyls I ask the Chair’s indulgence to explain. Dr Hutchison is apparently not aware that the reason for that clause in the Supplementary Order Paper is to enable the collection of polychlorinated biphenyls and their removal offshore. There is a legal circularity that needed to be corrected which is one of the key things the Supplementary Order Paper does. 
In terms of the reassessment process I am absolutely confident that only the number of materials that need to be recommitted will be. I think that will be an open-ended question for the Environmental Risk Management Authority and I am sure that the funding and budgetary arguments around that will be made to me very aggressively. I am also confident that that mechanism provides for the revisiting of any concerns that people may have about an individual application or approval or a group standard as new knowledge becomes available. I believe that that meets the concern expressed to me by the Green Party about the desire for a rotational re-approval process which we believe would be extraordinarily unproductive—because there is no intellectual property involved in the consent itself of course—and extremely costly. So yes I believe I can give the member the assurance he is asking for. 
I am also happy to assure him that the discussion about the funding and the delivery capacity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be robust as we move into the next Budget round and one of the issues I am concerned about as a consequence of this bill is that we do have the capacity in our communities—with no added cost to local government if that can be achieved—to ensure enforcement of the regulations we are passing.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:826] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:826] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to.
Wilkinson Kate: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:823] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the issue of hazardous substances is of utmost national importance. It is important to the economy of our country and it is important for our farming and primary production industries. We must be proud too of the clean green image that we currently have in New Zealand and we certainly must jealously guard that image. But we must also be sensible. We must be sensible in our approaches to legislating and we must be sensible in our approaches to restricting certain substances. Many substances as we all know are harmless but they are hazardous in the wrong hands. Are we legislating for those wrong hands or are we legislating for the substances that are indeed harmful? How does one legislate for that without unnecessarily restricting the industries on which our economy so much depends? 
Part 1 refers to substances in containment. Again we must be very mindful of our biosecurity issues. We must protect our borders not only from biosecurity incursions but also in terms of immigration. I am concerned and appalled at some of the very slow delayed reactions of the Government to incursions in relation to biosecurity issues. We have only to look at the fiasco in relation to didymo and “rock snot”. To know that all our South Island waters have now been classified as ridden with didymo is I think an appalling state for our country to be in and as a South Islander I am absolutely appalled. It is totally negligent of the Government to have delayed for so long in relation to that incursion. I am concerned that the same will happen with this bill. Although we must protect against incursions we also must be sensible. I am concerned that the bill has the impact of perhaps regulating against Sellotape against Mr Muscle and against window cleaner and I think that is a ridiculous state of affairs. To say that those things are hazardous is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. 
But even more than that we have to look at the compliance costs to our agricultural and other industries. The transportation of certain hazardous substances which cannot be transported in the same vehicle as non-hazardous substances only adds to the compliance costs for our farming industry. If we are trying to transport goods from Invercargill to Canterbury and there has to be separate trucks and separate transports then I think we have to be very sensible and balance the compliance cost against the safety issue. That is where the National Party and I have reservations in relation to the bill. We must be very careful to ensure that this is sensible law-making and that it is balanced and responsible and not reckless.
King Annette: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:955] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call to clear up the point the member was making about the clause stating that a member ceases to hold office if he or she dies. I am informed that that clause is in the current Veterinarians Act 1994. So there must have been a good reason why it was put in by the National Government in 1994. The member might also be interested to know that a similar clause is in the Electoral Act which states that a seat becomes vacant if someone dies. However many people on that side hold seats—and they are vacant already.
Wilson Margaret: Adjournment 
Wilson Margaret: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1053] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I adjourn the House as the first weeks of the forty-eighth Parliament come to a close I also wish to pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of the House. Consistent with the brevity of the speeches just made I shall keep my thanks short. May I however acknowledge the hard work of the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers particularly during urgency and the work of those whom no one else mentioned—the interpreters. They probably spend more time on end in this House than anyone else does. Also it is important to acknowledge the work of the kaumatua and his wonderful wife Rose who work tirelessly for Parliament but are rarely acknowledged. 
I also extend my thanks to the Clerk of the House the Deputy Clerk and all the members of the Clerk’s Office for their professionalism and the administrative skills they have demonstrated over the past year. I include in this thanks also the work of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and all his staff for drafting legislation without which there would probably be no purpose for us being here. 
It is also appropriate to thank the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service and all the members of staff of the Parliamentary Service for their professional administration in the servicing of Parliament in its myriad facets. I say a special thanks to the Serjeant-at-Arms and all those who work with him to uphold the traditions and propriety of the Chamber and to welcome the many visitors who come to the parliamentary galleries. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament. 
I offer my sincere thanks too to those who have worked in support of the committees I have chaired. I also say a special thanks to the leaders of the parties of this House their deputies and the Leader of the House the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the party whips. Without their skills and expertise the House would not run as efficiently as it does. Before I finally acknowledge the efforts of the members of Parliament I also acknowledge the efforts of the members of the press gallery who are part of us in one way or another. 
Finally then I acknowledge all members of Parliament who despite enormous workloads continue to serve their electorates. I especially acknowledge and welcome the new members of Parliament. I know as one member has already said it is a little strange but coming back in the new year it grows on one. As members go to join their families and friends in the coming break I wish them all well until we meet again in February 2006.
Hide Rodney: Adjournment 
Hide Rodney: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1053] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party and caucus I thank Michael Cullen for his kind words and I wish you Madam Speaker a very very merry Christmas and—I think Dr Cullen will allow us to say it—a prosperous New Year despite Mr Bollard’s concerns. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: A bit slower. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A sort of slow prosperous New Year! For the ACT party I thank all the people who work at Parliament make it function and make MPs’ lives possible. I especially thank the Clerk’s Office which does a tremendous job for us. The messengers security staff and library staff do a tremendous job in helping us. I thank particularly the people at Bellamy’s who serve us literally all hours of the day and night. I thank all the other people who work in Parliament and look after us MPs oftentimes when we are grumpy. 
I would like to wish a merry Christmas to all the ACT staff and also former staff. I realise that might be somewhat redundant given that Don Brash has wished all the National Party staff a merry Christmas but we view those people as just on loan to the National Party and are looking forward to their coming back. I would like to wish the former ACT MPs a very merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. 
But most important I would like to use this opportunity to wish all New Zealanders a merry Christmas; a safe holiday period which means driving carefully within the law on the roads; and a prosperous New Year.
Sharples Pita: Adjournment 
Sharples Pita: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1052] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 On behalf of the Maori Party I would like to endorse the remarks of Dr Cullen the Leader of the House; Dr Brash the leader of the National Party; and other Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the new party “the 2s” who sit beside us! These sittings have been somewhat of a culture shock for three-quarters of the Maori Party but we are adjusting OK. We have made a lot of friends we are enjoying it and we hope everyone has a good Christmas. Nga manaakitanga o Te RungaRawa ki a tatou katoa. May God bless us all. Kia ora.
[Volume:628;Page:1052] 
But in the spirit of Christmas I would like to wish all of our colleagues the very best Christmas and New Year and hope that we all give our frayed nerves a rest and return much refreshed and in a more Zen state of mind in 2006.
Kedgley Sue: Adjournment 
Kedgley Sue: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1052] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. May I first say how appreciative we have been of you the first woman Speaker of this House. You have done a magnificent job often against very great odds. It is a pleasure to have the first woman Speaker in this House. We also extend our gratitude to all of the people—the invisible people as it were—who make our lives possible and who toil away to enable us to carry out our functions in this House. 
I would be less than honest if I did not say that this year has been—in the Queen’s words—an annus horribilis for the Green Party with the loss of Rod Donald and of course with two other MPs also leaving us in the election. However we have survived. We particularly welcome our colleagues from the Maori Party into this House. It has been wonderful to have this whole new party a new dimension in the House with what that party has brought to it. We think it is wonderful. We note that the new leader of the Tory Party in England said that he was absolutely committed to ending the Punch and Judy show in Parliament there. It would be our dream that we too could put an end to the Punch and Judy show in this House and that we could in the new year have more cooperative more collaborative less acrimonious debate in this House and in some of our select committees and so forth.
Brown Peter: Adjournment 
Brown Peter: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1052] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Although I endorse the comments of the Leader of the House Dr Cullen and to a large degree the leader of the National Party we would like to offer our compliments to you Madam Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers for the way you have administered things in this House on a very fair basis. We would like to compliment the Clerk the Office of the Clerk and all its staff and also wish them well over the Christmas break. We compliment also the people who work in this complex: parliamentary staff secretaries messengers—who do a very important job and are often overlooked far too often—and thank them for their services and wish them a merry Christmas—not too merry but an enjoyable Christmas—and to come back. 
Finally on behalf of my leader and my colleagues who endorse all these sentiments I wish everybody—all the MPs in particular—a merry Christmas and a good New Year. May we all come back and remember one little thing: we are here to serve the people of New Zealand whom we also wish a merry Christmas and a happy time. May we come back and do our job that much better.
Brash Don: Adjournment 
Brash Don: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1051] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I echo the comments made by the Leader of the House. I also extend thanks on behalf of the National Party to you Madam Speaker to the Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers to the Clerk of the House and all of his staff messengers security staff drivers members of the Parliamentary Library staff—the people throughout this complex who ensured that we operated effectively and sometimes efficiently over the year. 
I also thank the staff of the National Party members of Parliament and those in my own leader’s office. We started this year with a caucus of only 27 which meant that our staff complement was severely strained. We end this year with a lot more members of Parliament but we are not yet staffed up to that level of caucus numbers. The consequence of course is that the staff are under even more pressure now than they were at the beginning of the year. So I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I also wish them a happy safe and restful Christmas period so that we are ready to function effectively in the new year.
Cullen Michael: Adjournment 
Cullen Michael: Adjournment 
[Volume:628;Page:1051] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Madam Speaker before you declare the House adjourned until 14 February I briefly wish you and all the staff—the Clerk’s Office the Assistant Speakers the Deputy Speaker the Hansard staff the messengers the security staff all our secretaries and other staff the remainder of the staff who service this building both Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services—the very best wishes. I thank them for all the services they have performed for all of us throughout this year. 
I particularly wish all my colleagues in Parliament a merry Christmas and a happy New Year and I remind them that this is the second-most important part of their lives. For the next few weeks they can enjoy the most important part of their lives and the public prays that from approximately Christmas Eve for another couple of weeks they do not hear from any of us.
Vote: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Kedgley Sue: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1050] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I take a very brief call to say that the Green Party warmly welcomes the bill defects and all. We would wish as Rodney Hide has pointed out that the bill was able to extend its reach beyond our shores so that we could be mercifully released from the spam that comes from Nigeria and other countries. But the fact that it will not be able to stop spam coming in from Nigeria is not a reason to say that we should not have the bill at all and that we should not try to stop spam that comes from within New Zealand. So we see this bill as the first positive step in trying to rid our lives of spam. 
We would love to understand why we cannot extend the provisions of the bill further. Tau Henare suggested that he will seek to amend it at the select committee so that it can extend its reach and we would welcome that. If we were able to extend the bill’s reach to beyond our shores I am sure it would be one of the most popular bills that has ever come before Parliament. I am sure it will sail through Parliament notwithstanding the comments of Rodney Hide. So as far we are concerned let us bring it on. We will see whether we can amend the bill and extend its reach. Would it not be wonderful if we could rid our lives of the endless ridiculous emails from Nigeria and elsewhere including New Zealand? 
I congratulate David Cunliffe on getting the bill to this stage. Let us hope it has a speedy passage through the House.
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Harawira Hone: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1041] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 On behalf of the Maori Party I say that we support this bill going to the select committee. It opens up a whole can of worms about the living situations of a lot of our people. We would like some clarity not just about the issues of boarding etc. but about the status our people have in respect of their housing and about the ways in which they can be moved from the situation of poverty that most who live in those houses are currently facing to a situation whereby they can own those homes themselves.
Donnelly Brian: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1037] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a few remarks on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone our housing spokesperson. The aim of the bill is to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 in two ways: to rename it as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 and to allow one-way information-matching on tenants and tenancies between Government departments—more precisely the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The primary purpose of the bill is to protect the integrity of the benefits system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and will help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in the bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill recognises that current legislation struggles with what constitutes a household or a family. The bill is quite specific about what information may be disclosed about who lives at the address in question. The legislation requires a consequential amendment to the Privacy Act. 
New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the select committee but as the previous speaker indicated he may do we will certainly be looking for all the fish-hooks within it—in fact that is the role of the select committee. We support the intent of the legislation to minimise opportunities for the overpayment of benefits or benefit fraud. 
It is vital that the information matching is only one way from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Ministry of Social Development and is requested only on clear and justifiable grounds. There is in our view a fine line between having enough information to protect the State’s finances and prying into the private lives of our citizens. That line should be made very clear and should never be crossed. The one-way specific information-sharing enabled by this bill is acceptable but New Zealand First is wary of the possibilities afforded by the electronic information age. We will be seeking assurances that any information sharing occurs under strict limits and controls and is sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. 
Changes required to the Privacy Act will need to be carefully worked through to ensure the intent of that Act is not compromised and I should imagine some necessary changes will be made to the Electoral Act to ensure we do not have people running up huge bills and winning their elections when in fact they have breached the integrity and the intent of that particular Act. Some definite work will need to be done there in terms of legislative reform. 
In between times we shall be voting for this particular bill to go through to the select committee and we will be looking very carefully at the issues we raise in that forum.
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1034] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. 
The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows 2003 and 2004 Budget initiatives for new and extended information matches between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has completed the implementation of higher priority information matches with other agencies. These matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and maintain the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information-matching programme from 1 July 2006. The information will help minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments and help in the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments the information match may benefit tenants their partners and dependents by identifying situations where they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support. 
Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act require that individuals affected by the programme will be notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout the operation of the programme to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing corporation tenants will be made aware that information supplied to it by tenants may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has agreed to provide reports to Housing New Zealand Corporation on the extent to which housing tenants are giving incorrect information to the corporation. This will allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to make informed decisions on potential remedies. 
The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act will provide for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purposes of information sharing and to list the new information-matching provisions. The bill extends information matching between agencies so to improve the integrity of the income support system. 
I commend the bill to the House.
Woolerton R Doug: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1032] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise supports the bill. Yet again as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said it is something we have to do to line up with international obligations. Unfortunately in the countries we sell into—be that selling wine dairy products beef or the other things we rely on basically for our standard of living—we face not only tariff barriers but also non-tariff barriers. 
The greatest of those is the apple situation in Australia. To give Dr Lockwood Smith his credit he battled that for many years. To his credit he involved himself in I guess an international incident—it is off our shores—by suggesting to the Australians that they were not as clean as perhaps they might pretend to be. He was right of course but diplomacy does not allow one to say those things and the matter was plastered over. However the honourable member was quite correct. 
We have to fall into line particularly in the matter of wine where one cannot name a wine after a French province or whatever without paying some sort of fee. New Zealand First supports this bill. We think it is essential. International agreements are something that we as a country cannot get around. This is one of many such agreements that we are forced to comply with and we do so reluctantly but with the knowledge that New Zealand has to abide by its international obligations.
Donnelly Brian: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1026] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to say that New Zealand First has carefully looked at the bill and we consider it to be worthy of our supporting it to a select committee. It is a good example of cooperation between ourselves and our Australian cousins. It certainly supports New Zealand’s trade health safety and environmental objectives. It creates economies of scale. 
I have only one reflection to make which is that this legislation has the potential to be a springboard that helps advance the Pacific Plan in terms of extending some of its provisions to our Pacific neighbours many of whom struggle to find the capacity within their own sovereign borders for this type of accreditation system. I just put that out as a teaser for people to think through but as I said New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee.