edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sharples Pita: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
Sharples Pita: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
[Volume:675;Page:20963] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker mo te Pati Maori. In te Ao Maori the pursuit of kotahitanga—to travel as one—is a quality much admired. Ma te kotahitanga e whai kaha ai tatou—in unity we have strength. In making the ultimate sacrifice for his people and his country Corporal Doug Grant demonstrated the courage and the commitment he gave on behalf of us all. And so today we in the Maori Party along with all other parties in this House mourn his untimely death a death so far away in Kabul yet a death serving under the authority of the New Zealand SAS representing our country with great honour and pride. 
Corporal Grant had taken on the responsibility of training the Afghan National Security Forces and accompanying them on their mission when he was fatally gunned down by a hail of bullets. He was killed while trying to rescue civilians—three British people and two Gurkha security guards—who just happened to be in the path of fire. It was an act of heroism a brave and valiant act which will for ever be associated with his life and indeed with his death. 
There is no greater sacrifice than to give one’s life for another and I place on record our complete sympathy and aroha for his wife Tina their 7-year-old daughter and their 5-year-old son who have to endure such a devastating sacrifice in losing a beloved husband and father. It is the scale of loss for the family that must occupy our thoughts in this final tribute—the parents the grandparents cousins aunts uncles nieces and nephews who no longer have Dougie in their lives. There will be other times when we must address our contribution in Afghanistan and the impact it takes upon our troops. Today it is appropriate to focus on the very human toll made on the family on his SAS colleagues and indeed the entire Defence Force. 
Doug packed a lot into his 41 years and probably his five brothers will know only too well the extent of the loss his children must endure. One of those brothers Stuart Grant summed it up: “He truly was a deep thinker sometimes instinctive but never impulsive. He was the whole package Doug. And it’s important to remember this for those of us who let him go”. 
Na reira kai te rangatira haere hoki atu okioki pai haere ki te hunga nui e pohiritia koutou nga mate. Na reira koutou ki a koutou haere okioki pai mai. 
[ 
And so depart the chief return rest well journey on to the myriad who welcome you the dead. Remain there among the dead rest well. 
]
Hutchison Paul: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21024] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21034] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I thank the Committee; I thank the Committee indeed— 
Hon Member 
: There was objection. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh there is objection. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will put the leave again; my apologies. Leave is sought for the Hon Pete Hodgson to speak briefly on the commencement. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Trade Marks Amendment Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper85. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Social Networking Site—Fake Profile 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Social Networking Site—Fake Profile 
[Volume:675;Page:20966] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is certainly not a matter to be dealt with in the House right now. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a matter to be dealt with in the House because it is not a matter to do with the proceedings of the House. But if there is a concern because a member is being impersonated in such a way inappropriately I am sure he or she would raise the matter with the Speaker and the matter could be dealt with.
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
[Volume:675;Page:20963] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 For many of us most of the time Afghanistan is another one of the seemingly interminable conflicts in a far-off place punctuated by dust heat hardship and complete cultural difference. It is only when an event as horrific as the death of Corporal Doug Grant occurs that we realise a couple of things. Firstly we realise the level of sacrifice being made by all of our personnel in Afghanistan. We realise the risks that they face the hardships that they endure and the toll that they are personally prepared to take in defence of a greater ideal. The second thing we realise—and we have come to know this about Corporal Grant since his death—is what fantastic people we have in our armed services: people of high calibre people who are highly qualified highly committed and professional in their tasks but as Corporal Grant’s short life shows people with a huge talent for and commitment to the well-being of their fellow citizens. His work with the Patriots group his work in the area of family violence prevention and his broad commitment to his community and society demonstrate that. 
For his family—for Tina and his children and the wider family—this is a time of immense loss and huge sadness. The consolation of the support that there is all around the country for them and the recognition of Corporal Grant’s contribution will I hope be of some benefit but at the end of the day it is going to be a very lonely and difficult time for them. 
For those of us in this House we salute a man who gave all he could for his country a man who fell fighting to preserve the ideals for which he had joined the SAS and a man whose contribution to New Zealand in 41 short years was immeasurably strong. Corporal Doug Grant may well have fallen in conflict; he joins the band of New Zealand heroes in that respect. But he will never be forgotten. May he rest in peace.
Boscawen John: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
Boscawen John: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan 
[Volume:675;Page:20962] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I also wish to express my sorrow at the death of SAS soldier Corporal Doug Grant in Afghanistan last month. Corporal Grant died in the nation’s capital Kabul helping save the lives of three British civilians and two security guards at the British Council offices. 
Corporal Grant had a distinguished career in the military. He served for more than 21 years in some of New Zealand’s most important and notable overseas missions. He was deployed twice to East Timor he served in the former Yugoslavia and this was his second mission in Afghanistan. When he died he was fulfilling a long-time dream of serving in the New Zealand military’s most elite unit. He wrote an essay as a school pupil about wanting to serve in the SAS and went on to do just that with great bravery and commitment. He is an inspiration to all young New Zealanders who aspire to go on to serve their nation in whatever way they can. Soldiers like Corporal Grant do a job that few have the courage to do. They deal with the darkest and most savage and dangerous elements of the modern world and they do it with professionalism and pride. Corporal Grant believed deeply in the good work the SAS was doing in Afghanistan in helping protect the people of Afghanistan. 
It was not just in his career in the military that he dedicated his life to helping others. As we have heard he was a volunteer for the White Ribbon Ride an event aimed at eliminating violence against women. He was a community man and most important a family man. I particularly wish to express my heartfelt sympathies to Corporal Grant’s wife Tina and their two children. Although we all mourn the loss of a great New Zealander our loss is nothing compared with their loss of a dedicated husband and father. I hope at this unbelievably difficult time in their lives they can take comfort in the fact that he served his nation with great honour and courage. Too often we ordinary citizens living our lives in relative safety forget the role that soldiers play in defending our borders and preserving our way of life. We can also too easily forget the role our military in particular plays in rebuilding and keeping the peace in nations that have been devastated by war. Corporal Grant and his family have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We all in this Chamber mourn his loss.
Points of Order — Social Networking Site—Fake Profile 
Points of Order — Social Networking Site—Fake Profile 
[Volume:675;Page:20966] 
Points of Order 
Social Networking Site—Fake Profile 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has just been drawn to my attention that there appears to be an impersonation of a member of Parliament reported by Stuff by way of a false Facebook page entitled “Aaron Gilmore for PM”. My question to you is whether the matter of that sort of impersonation should be brought up as privilege or whether it is a private matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is certainly not a matter to be dealt with in the House right now. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a matter to be dealt with in the House because it is not a matter to do with the proceedings of the House. But if there is a concern because a member is being impersonated in such a way inappropriately I am sure he or she would raise the matter with the Speaker and the matter could be dealt with.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:675;Page:20965] 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Hon Chris Carter to make a valedictory statement at 5.45 p.m. today and for the House to suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of his valedictory statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Young Jonathan: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Young Jonathan: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21030] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21017] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Part 1 contains amendments to the Trade Marks Act to give effect to the Government’s decision to ratify the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and to accede to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. Look effectively the aim of these international treaties is to reduce the business compliance burden for businesses registering trademarks especially where businesses are seeking to register their trademarks overseas. 
Part 1 also amends the Trade Marks Act to augment police enforcement of the criminal offence provisions relating to and dealing with counterfeit trademarks and counterfeit goods—something members will no doubt be turning their minds to for the Rugby World Cup as part of that particular incentive. It does this by empowering the Ministry of Economic Development and the Customs Service to enforce those offences. Enforcement officers of the Ministry of Economic Development are being provided with a warrantless ability to enter places that are open to the public and to search and seize counterfeit goods where they have reasonable grounds to believe that those goods are evidence of a criminal offence under the Trade Marks Act. Customs officers are being provided with a warrantless ability to seize counterfeit goods under their control at the border as evidence of an offence. These investigative powers for customs officers will augment their existing powers available under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. 
My memory is that all parties in the House supported this legislation through its first and second readings so I imagine that we will be dealing with a swift and well-clipped Committee stage on this bill. 
Finally Part 1 introduces a number of minor amendments to the Trade Marks Act to clarify the intent or effectiveness of particular provisions to include a small change to border protection measures for preventing the importation of trademark-infringing goods and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of administration by customs. Included is an amendment to allow customs to temporarily suspend enforcement of a border protection notice from a trademark owner under certain conditions.
Goodhew Jo: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21034] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hutchison Paul: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21016] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to talk on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. It certainly is a most timely bill and the Minister of Agriculture David Carter needs to be congratulated on ushering it in in such a timely fashion. I understand there is support amongst the parties and that is a great thing. They realise that this bill is important for the country’s biosecurity its animal health and also for the marketability of our high-value export products—and this is becoming more and more so. 
It is salutary that a variety of other export industries in New Zealand have gone ahead in the traceability stakes. In Pukekohe the onion industry has been required to do this by major importers in Europe Tesco and Sainsbury’s so that they can identify the box of onions that goes there from the field they are grown in. This is the sort of standard that is being required more and more throughout the world. So as I say it is timely that the National Government has responded to this and it is supported by the other parties of the House. I understand that 5 or 6 years ago a Mr Ted Coats was chair of National Animal Identification and Tracing and he continues to be so. 
Just before I finish I want to mention one thing. The company that invented the tags was actually a New Zealand company. It started off in Palmerston North about 30 to 35 years ago by virtue of one of the local farmers calling his jeweller mate to see whether he could manufacture an appropriate tag for him. From there the company grew. It is now a multinational billion-dollar turnover company. The tag contains an electronic device that makes the traceability possible. There is another all New Zealand-owned company. 
But just to finish off as I said this bill is highly appropriate and timely. It is being brought in flexibly and gradually and it will serve New Zealand well.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21032] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Like a bill we were debating earlier on in the evening that dealt with the tracing of animals the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill assists New Zealand in developing our position in the 21st century global economy. It assists with dealing with both the opportunities and the threats that our existence as part of a global economy presents to us. The opportunities of developing our own intellectual property and our own particular niche goods and services and being able to export them to markets around the world is a very important opportunity for New Zealand. Trademarks and copyrights of that intellectual property and of those goods are important for New Zealand’s ability to express our high-value brands around the world—the likes of Zespri Fonterra and Beef and Lamb New Zealand for instance. These are known as high-quality products around the world and we need to be able to protect them. 
We also need to be able to protect our own consumers here in New Zealand to ensure that they know when they are purchasing a product that has been imported into New Zealand whether they are purchasing the genuine article or something that is a knock-off of the genuine brand. As has been discussed it is sometimes quite difficult to determine whether a product is the real thing. As our economy develops and grows it will be about not just protecting our well-known agricultural brands but also being able to develop new technologies and new ideas and being able to send those into niche markets around the world as well. 
For those reasons although the material in this bill is reasonably dry—and there has been some amusement about the debate this evening—it is hugely important and it does warrant discussion in the House. Although these things do tend to get a little bit overlooked and it is not the sort of thing we expect to read on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 the functionality of a bill like this and of New Zealand signing up to the treaties that are ratified in this bill is actually hugely important for our ability as a nation to deal with some of the trade deficits that we are dealing with in this country—the fact that we are still importing more than we export—and our ability to go out there on the world stage and make some money. That is all embedded deeply in this legislation and indeed in the animal tracing legislation that we dealt with earlier on in the night. 
Labour is very much in favour of this bill. It is our pleasure to continue to support it. We hope that its commencement occurs in as timely a fashion as possible and that its progress through the House is able to continue. I do not have too much more to add to the debate at this point so I shall take my seat.
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
[Volume:673;Page:19657] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to advise the House that there has been an error in the voting in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. The results of the two votes were incorrectly announced. On the vote on the closure motion for clauses 1 to 3 the Noes were announced as 55. They should be 56. There was an addition error. On the motion that the report on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be adopted the Noes were announced as 55. The correct number is 56. In line with Standing Order 148(2) the vote is corrected. This is to inform members that the record will be corrected as well. Thank you for your forbearance.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19635] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 55.
Goodhew Jo: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19652] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Young Jonathan: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Young Jonathan: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19649] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Calder Cam: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19644] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on the Government motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. It may have escaped the notice of the previous speaker Dr Choudhary but we have been dealing with some rather serious matters in the House over the past 2 years. But I am pleased that we have got around to this measure. It is a balanced and measured response to a problem that is of concern to all New Zealanders and that is the presence of dangerous dogs in our country. As was commented in  
L’Esprit des Bêtes 
 of 1847 “The more one gets to know men the more one values dogs.” Some people think a dog is a man’s best friend but we have to realise that that is not the case with all dogs. The dog in question was bred for fighting as we have heard and also to deal with very large and recalcitrant livestock. It is known to have a strong and dominant character. It needs strong control. There are none in New Zealand at the moment. We believe that that is a very good situation and we aim to maintain it. Therefore we aim to add this dog to schedule 4 of the Act. I also note that the department is to undertake a first-principles review of the Dog Control Act in a measured and balanced way. I commend this motion. 
Motion agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19631] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Upston Louise: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Upston Louise: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19641] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Unlike the previous speaker Charles Chauvel I am very proud to support the order banning the perro de presa Canario dog breed. There are a few breeds that this country never wants to see entering our shores and this is one of them.  
We heard descriptions of the breed from the honourable Associate Minister of Local Government who introduced this order today. The perro de presa Canario is a breed that was bred in the 1800s for fighting. That was its sole purpose for being in existence. We have heard the fact that dogs of this breed have been responsible for two deaths in the United States one of which was of the dog’s owner which I find absolutely despicable. It is important to take the steps we have available to us with this notice of motion so I am pleased to do that.  
I will also address the comments that Mr Twyford made. I say that clearly a wider review will be undertaken as committed to by the Minister of Local Government. This side of the House sees that this sort of thing should take a lower priority than earthquake recovery in Canterbury and Christchurch. The Minister of Local Government has other priorities which this side of the House is quite happy about. The other important thing is that there is recognition that there are significant dog attacks but rather than one-off knee-jerk legislative changes we need that wider review.  
Someone in my own employment was subjected to an attack by a bull mastiff of which the perro de presa Canario is a fellow breed as she went for a run down a suburban road. That is the sort of thing we need to get on top of but I do not think it is as simple as some of the legislative changes we have seen in the past in terms of microchipping. I am not convinced that that has saved any child or adult from a dog attack. That is why I applaud the Minister for his wider review and I applaud the action being taken today to support this order. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19653] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Chauvel Charles: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Chauvel Charles: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19641] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition supports the Government Notice of Motion No. 3 on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 but I want to comment just on the procedure by which the House is dealing with this issue. The way in which we are dealing with this order is by way of what has become known as the affirmative resolution procedure. Instead of the matter going to the Regulations Review Committee which is what most other delegated legislation does—and Mr Assistant Speaker Roy knows this because I served in a very junior capacity while he was on that committee in the last term as a senior member—this matter is somehow seen as so important that it has to come to the House and we have to spend an hour on it giving set-piece speeches which is a total waste of time. It is an absolute waste of time and an absolute waste of taxpayers’ dollars. It is disgraceful.  
Constitutionally and legally we should refer all these matters in the ordinary course of events to the scrutiny committee that Parliament sets up every term which meets every Thursday morning in a sitting week and deals with all these regulations. Instead these matters go to a subject select committee where they occupy time on the agenda then eventually—because if I recall rightly this was dealt with back in November 2010 by the Local Government and Environment Committee—they make it back to the House and onto the Order Paper for a Wednesday night. We have as I said one of these stupid set-piece debates where the Opposition tries to fill up all the time it can take the Government tries to get through it as quickly as it can and nobody is the wiser once the debate is over.  
I am really making in my speech a plea for us to recognise that we do have a decent procedure available to the Parliament for the scrutiny of legislation. Virtually everything else goes there. There is nothing special about dogs except the fact that back in 1996 there was a moral panic about breeds of attack dogs so Parliament decided it had to do something that looked really sexy to the public. It had all these orders approved by the full House rather than through the ordinary scrutiny procedure. That is ridiculous. It was the usual knee-jerk reaction to a matter of public interest. Instead of honouring the usual legal and constitutional procedures the Government did something really special and decided that a future Parliament would have to waste a heap of time on debating this matter. That is ridiculous and it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. If members opposite were really concerned about this matter then their party would not have enacted this legislation in the form that it was enacted and we would not be wasting our time as we are now.
Foss Craig: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Foss Craig: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19639] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 78B of the Dog Control Act 1996 this House approve the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 made under section 78A of that Act. 
 This motion stood referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. In its report presented on 25 November 2010 the committee recommended that the motion be approved. The Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 will add the perro de presa Canario breed of dog to the list of dogs banned from importation into New Zealand in schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Adding the perro de presa Canario to schedule 4 is a precautionary public safety measure to protect New Zealanders and prevent this potentially aggressive breed from becoming established in the New Zealand dog population.  
The perro de presa Canario is a large heavy dog with powerful jaws and a documented tendency to exhibit aggressive behaviour. The breed originates from the Canary Islands where it has been used for organised dog fights. The tendency of the perro de presa Canario to exhibit aggressive behaviour or attack and the size and strength of the breed make it of particular concern because of the seriousness of injuries it could inflict. There have been two known fatal attacks involving the breed in the United States since 2001.  
The breed is currently not known to be present in New Zealand and is prohibited from importation into Australia. The Brazilian fila dogo Argentino the Japanese tosa breeds and the American pit bull terrier type are already listed in schedule 4 of the Act as prohibited from importation. Dogs of the breeds or types listed that are already present in New Zealand must be classified as menacing by local authorities must be muzzled when at large and must be neutered. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: How about with meaning? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: This measure does not affect the proposed review of public safety around dogs I tell Mr Barker. The review will look at the underlying principles of public safety around dogs and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime. We will seek a better understanding of how to improve public safety around dogs while ensuring that responsible dog owners are not disadvantaged. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: These are 5-minute calls. There will be a 1-minute warning bell.
Ross Jami-Lee: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19651] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19637] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 At this stage I understand there is a slightly wider purview than we have in respect of other parts of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. I will express why Labour thinks that overall this bill ought to proceed and therefore the commencement date is appropriate. Sad though it may be I think to quote Winston Peters “every Western democracy” has its own security and intelligence service. We might not like to think that there are elements in society that would do untoward things but the reality is that virtually all countries protect themselves against those possibilities and they do so on occasions through an organisation like the Security Intelligence Service.  
We try to strike the balance between giving those organisations the powers they need to do their work and protecting citizens from intrusion on their civil liberties. In this instance in New Zealand we do that through the oversight of the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants who by tradition is a retired High Court judge or in fact it might be by way of legislative mandate that the commissioner has to be a former High Court judge. I see the Attorney-General is nodding in that respect; he thinks it is.  
That is how we achieve the appropriate balance between protecting our citizens from inappropriate intrusion or surveillance by the security apparatus and having that facility there for the protection of our way of life so that it is less likely to be disturbed by people who have different values and have a different ambition. Although those people are rare we have to accept that they exist in some parts of the world and that they could do damage to our way of life if they had their way. Those are the two interests that we try to balance and I think this bill achieves that.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19636] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Report adopted. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 55.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19634] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Sections 248 through to 254 of the Crimes Act were inserted by the Crimes Amendment Act of 2003 and they deal with crimes involving computers. The purpose of Part 2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is to give effect to certain amendments to the Crimes Act and clause 17 amends section 248 of the Crimes Act. It inserts a definition of “authorisation” which is currently not there and which is defined as including “an authorisation conferred on a person by or under an enactment or a rule of law or by an order of a court or judicial process”. So that is what happens there; that definition of authorisation is inserted. Clause 18 repeals section 252(3) of the Crimes Act which is rendered superfluous because of the definition of “authorisation” included in clause 17 of the bill. Sections 253 and 254 of the Crimes Act are repealed. Those sections currently give both the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service in the case of section 253 and the Government Communications Security Bureau in the case of section 254 a qualified exemption from the offence of accessing computer systems without authorisation. Those sections have become unnecessary in view of the definition of “authorisation” that will be inserted by clause 17.
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19633] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 covers amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 that are made by this New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The difficulty we have in this Committee at this part of the debate is that the commentary on the bill says nothing about Part 2. Therefore when trying to interpret Part 2 we are left to our own devices. It seems to me from the changes brought about by this part that we are amending a provision in the Crimes Act by omitting a phrase “sections 249 and 250” and substituting in its place the phrase “sections 249 to 252”. In other words by this amendment we are omitting an additional two clauses from the Crimes Act.  
My first question for the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General is whether we are repealing those sections or just saying that those sections do not apply to actions by the Security Intelligence Service; if so what are we changing in practice? It appears that at least part of this relates to accessing computer systems without an authorisation and in that regard we repealing section 252(3). I presume that we are repealing that for all purposes not just for the purposes of the Security Intelligence Service. Hence I am a little surprised in that just from an initial reading of this part of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill I cannot see why we would be repealing provisions relating to the Crimes Act. It is possible I suppose that there were provisions relating to that Act and that section 252(3) of the Crimes Act might have had a specific provision exempting the Security Intelligence Service from that particular provision of the Act.  
If we have extended the number of sections that are omitted to include section 252(3) then the omission of those sections might mean that there is no need now to have the special provisions in sections 253 and 254 which are accordingly repealed. The Minister I see has the statute in front of him and might be able to inform— 
Grant Robertson 
: He has memorised the Act. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: He may already know. The Attorney-General is very learned in matters of law. It may well be that he already knows off by heart the provisions of sections 249 to 252 of the Crimes Act and whether those sections are of particular application to the Security Intelligence Service only or whether they have wider application. I look forward to the Minister clarifying that question.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19633] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19629] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:673;Page:19665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Standing Order 299(1) be suspended to authorise the Committee of the whole House on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper No 244 to the following Acts that were not included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as introduced--the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misues of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:673;Page:19624] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give the member another call but I have to deal with a matter. During the course of the questions on clauses 1 to 3 of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the result was incorrectly announced as 67 for the Ayes and 56 for the Noes. It should have been announced as 65 for the Ayes and 55 for the Noes. I inform the Committee of this and the record will show the amended numbers.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19622] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19597] 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What recent announcement has he made about the recovery of the western hoki stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Today I announced the recovery of the western hoki stock following a period of low recruitment which saw stocks depleted between 2003 and 2006. The Ministry of Fisheries and the industry worked together to make large reductions in catch. It is a move that has now paid off with the scientific evidence meaning that the ministry is able to declare the stock rebuilt. This may allow for the reconsideration of total allowable catches later this year. This is exactly how the quota management system should work. 
Colin King 
: How is the management of New Zealand’s fisheries stock regarded by scientists internationally? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We manage our fisheries resources through an ongoing process of review and adjustment. New Zealand’s success in this area was recently documented in a report “Rebuilding Global Fisheries” which was co-authored by 20 international fisheries and marine scientists and New Zealand came right at the top.
Moroney Sue: General Debate 
Moroney Sue: General Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19600] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two letters from the office of the Hon Phil Goff to the Prime Minister John Key asking him to accept the 20000 New Zealand Educational Institute postcards—with no response from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Phil Goff to the Prime Minister pointing out that the reason the postcards were presented to me was that the Prime Minister made himself unavailable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that— 
Paul Quinn 
: What’s the date of the letter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members cannot stand up and yell stuff out. If the Speaker has not recognised the member he must not do that. The House will come to some order. Leave has been sought to table a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition to the right honourable Prime Minister. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19598] 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No 10 yesterday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she stand by her statement that “We are aware that for those people on the minimum wage budgeting is tight.”; if so does she support increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour to make it easier for minimum-wage workers who are facing tight budgets? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes to the first part of that question. To the second part of that question although we would all like a high minimum wage—and even $15 an hour is a high minimum wage—if it results in the loss of 6000 jobs then we do not think that that is a very helpful supportive or practical solution for those young people who are trying to get employment. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Was her comment “If you’ve got somebody who is 16 who is wanting a job and someone who is 30 at the same price then who is the employer going to employ?” an admission that a youth minimum wage will shift the issue of unemployment from one group to another? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In answer to the first part of the question yes; to the second part no.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19593] 
8. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What recent reports has he received on developments to technology at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I bring more great tidings of joy to this House. The New Zealand Customs Service last week signed an agreement with IBM that will start the development of a Joint Border Management System or JBMS. It will bring together the two border processing systems that were previously run independently by the New Zealand Customs Service and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. A $75 million appropriation will cover the first stage of the Joint Border Management System development. Stage one will include what is called the trade single window which will enable exporters importers and others involved in trade to complete all their border compliance requirements online through a single point of electronic contact. 
Paul Quinn 
: What benefits will the Joint Border Management System bring to the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Bringing these two previously independent systems together will give us more efficiency allowing for more effective trade and will improve biosecurity. The Joint Border Management System is designed to significantly improve border processing for New Zealand importers and exporters and to make the border agencies more effective. The Joint Border Management System will move the agencies away from fragmented separate processes that result in a duplication of efforts to a far more cohesive system that shares processes data and technology between border agencies and between industries.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19593] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Customs: what recent reports has he received— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Paul Quinn whose voice is not lacking in volume at all. But with the interjections that were going across the front of the House I was struggling to hear even Mr Quinn which is quite extraordinary. With those interjections now ceased please Paul Quinn on question No. 8.