edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15779] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I thank members of the House for their contributions. I want to make just a few comments to Dail Jones Tariana Turia Maryan Street and Judith Tizard in response to a few of the points that they have raised. 
The Hon Judith Tizard raised questions in respect of the provisions of the bill around the donations that were made for the redevelopment. The questions she raised are quite proper ones. I am assured by both the donors and the existing trust board that this bill confirms the understanding reached with those who made financial gifts. But the Hon Judith Tizard properly asks that the select committee look into that issue and ensure that is the case so that nobody’s legal rights are being compromised unfairly as a consequence of this bill. 
In respect of the comments made by Tariana Turia and New Zealand First member Dail Jones I thank the members. I think their comments show there is broad support across the House for the artistic fabric. In respect of the questions about the regional arts and museum funds I note that the Suter did apply to the fund that was established by the Government and its rejection was one of the key reasons that the redevelopment of the Suter Art Gallery was not able to proceed. I wish to give notice that I think that after this bill is passed when there is a new reform and redevelopment of the Suter under a council-owned organisation the Suter will be back knocking on the door of the Government for support in redeveloping the gallery. 
I must say I was a little disappointed that Maryan Street chose to use the debate on this non-controversial bill to make some partisan political points in respect of State ownership. I frankly think it showed as much judgment as her ditty at Labour’s congress in that there is a time for politics and there is a time for unity. I also note for her attention that the Suter Art Gallery was established under an Act of Parliament introduced by John Graham MP who was a Liberal. There is a long heritage of parties on all sides of the House and from all sides of the political spectrum supporting the arts community. Labour does not have a monopoly on arts policy nor arts wisdom. The very fact that the Suter art collection has been run by a private trust very successfully for over 100 years shows that the private sector too has a role to play in the development of Nelson arts and arts generally in New Zealand. 
I thank members for their support. This bill is important for the community of Nelson. I hope that we can expeditiously advance the bill so that the Suter Art Gallery can move to a new governance structure that will see its future being as strong as its past. 
Bill read a first time.
Jones Dail: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15775] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. Galleries and other historic places like public libraries and suchlike really epitomise the New Zealand way of life especially in the more rural areas where they have often been retained by the early settlers who developed them. They are very much part of the community. New Zealand First wishes to ensure that full recognition is given to their historical value and to the contribution they have made to society over the years. The Suter Gallery is very much up in the high rankings of such institutions. 
I wish to quote from notes prepared by Mahara Okeroa at the time of the 108th anniversary of the celebration of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery’s new category 2 status on the Historic Places Trust register and which are available on the www.beehive.govt.nz website—I note that the previous speaker also quoted from a similar source—“A visionary concept of Bishop Suter was to establish a public art gallery which recognises the value of art as a whole rather than being a pastime for the elite.” That is a really wonderful example of the egalitarianism of New Zealand society. In inspiring the creation of the gallery Bishop Suter and Amelia Suter have made a permanent imprint on the culture and quality of life of the Nelson region and in the overall sphere of things in the New Zealand way of life in my view. 
Nelson is a city that has long been recognised as a centre for arts crafts and cultural pursuits. In fact when I was in Nelson a couple of decades ago it was one of the few towns where I went to an art gallery and purchased a painting. I think it was of Maori Bay. Is there a bay in the Nelson area called Maori Bay? It seems to be a fairly popular name because there is one of that name in Muriwai as well. We still have the painting hanging up where we come into our house. 
Bishop Andrew Burn Suter founded the Bishopdale Sketching Club now known as the Nelson Suter Art Society which was instrumental in developing the Suter collection and which has remained extremely active financially and artistically in the life of the Suter. A member of the society can also be credited with the notable achievement of introducing Toss Woollaston to watercolour—a very memorable occasion. 
The Bishop Suter memorial gallery is important as a piece of architecture I understand; I appreciate that the member introducing the bill may not have had sufficient time to make that comment or if he did I must have missed it. The gallery is a memorial to a significant figure in Nelson’s history and I believe it is a significant piece of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage. Apparently there is a saying that goes with the Suter. The Suter’s byline “Remember Experience Dream” encapsulates the ways in which an art centre like the Suter enriches the lives of those who participate in its activities. New Zealand First has great pleasure in supporting this bill.
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15773] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 For the last few minutes the House has been discussing Australasia’s most famous sporting venue Lancaster Park AMI Stadium in my Christchurch Central electorate. I have to thank my four colleagues for their contributions. I thank in particular the member from Waikato and the member for Waiariki for their validation of the importance of Jade Stadium and I thank my two Christchurch colleagues for that as well. 
We have barely scratched the service because there is extraordinary depth and wealth to the history of this institution. I have to say there has not been deep discussion about the actual content of the legislation because really it has inspired us to wax lyrical about Lancaster Park. One serious point I have to make is that I indicated to the promoters of the bill that I was seeking to introduce a small non-contentious amendment to make sure that the legislation within its text contained recognition of the link back to Victory Park. Originally I hoped that this first reading would take place towards the end of last year when we celebrated the 90th anniversary of Passchendaele. I thought it was very appropriate to make sure that that link back to the First World War was recognised and I will discuss with colleagues how we do that. I am sure there are ways of doing it without having any massive effect on the legislation. 
The only other point I want to make is to assure residents of the Charleston neighbourhood—a very heavily Labour-voting area right next to the stadium—that the member who spoke earlier and claimed that the National Party was about to take over the area was merely raising terrifying concepts that will never become a reality. The thought that the Charleston neighbourhood could ever be represented by a National member of Parliament is both frightening and laughable. People of Charleston vote Labour and they are well represented by the Labour Party. They have had superb benefits from the Working for Families package KiwiSaver and other programmes of this Government over the last few years. They would rise in anger approaching civil disobedience at the thought of a National member of Parliament representing them. With that thought and with those words of comfort for the people of Charleston I take my leave. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Wilkinson Kate: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15769] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I had a real battle with my Otago colleague Jacqui Dean even to get this call. I thought it would be absolute hypocrisy and a disgrace if we had an Otago Highlanders supporter speaking in favour of Lancaster Park. Lancaster Park is an absolute Canterbury icon and only a passionate parochial and one-eyed Cantabrian—as Mr Barnett Ms Wagner and I are—could possibly speak in favour of the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill. 
This bill is about Lancaster Park. Some call it Lancaster Park some call it Jade Stadium some call it AMI Stadium but most of us are old enough that we still call it Lancaster Park. I am disappointed that we have had speeches about Lancaster Park and nobody has mentioned Robbie Deans nobody has mentioned Fergie McCormick nobody has mentioned Andrew Mehrtens Dan Carter or Richard Hadlee. So many sporting talents have played and entertained us at Lancaster Park. It is an absolute Canterbury icon. 
I still remember when I went to the Ranfurly Shield when I was quite young a 6-all draw saved by a Fergie McCormick penalty. I think it was against Auckland. We retained the Ranfurly Shield. I have been to many Crusaders finals. I even went to the Crusaders final—or it might have been the National Provincial Championship—that was played under fog. Nobody could see the game at all. If we looked at the television we could not see the game. If we looked at the match being played on the field we could not see it. We did not know whether the players were going right or left. But at the end of the game we were advised that the Crusaders had indeed rightfully won. 
It is my real pleasure to speak in favour of Lancaster Park. It is a stunning sports stadium. It is an absolute disgrace in this day and age when it is lauded here as being the modern sports stadium for the future that it may not even feature a Rugby World Cup semi-final in 2011. I do think that is a shame. Maybe we could have a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage— or maybe it could be given proper scrutiny at the select committee—that requires a Rugby World Cup semi-final at the very least to be held at our wonderful Lancaster Park stadium. 
We have heard of the Crusaders’ horses racing round the stadium in preparation for a Crusaders game. The Crusaders are one of the most successful franchises in New Zealand’s rugby history. It is only fitting that they display their skills and their talent in an iconic sports stadium such as Lancaster Park. I am very proud to support this bill at its first reading.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15766] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Soper Lesley: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — First Reading 
Soper Lesley: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15763] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill and commence by informing Mr Hide that I am very proud to wear the patch of the New Zealand Labour Party because Labour has a plan for the future which is to address the causes of antisocial behaviour. Labour is committed to protecting Kiwis their families and their communities. We have already shown that through such things as Te Rito the family anti-violence strategy. We are committed to a safe environment for families. I commend Mr Burrows for bringing his bill to the House; I will support it to go to the select committee for consideration. 
It is some years now since my city of Invercargill had a very serious and well-publicised gang problem which the Invercargill City Council struggled to deal with. That time involved a lot of intimidation and fear in the local community the building of some very high walls around rival gang headquarters and some fairly violent confrontations between well-identified rival gangs in the city. That violence and fear spilled out into neighbourhoods into the communities surrounding those gang headquarters and into the streets the gangs roared down in their rival cars. 
This bill empowers a council the Wanganui District Council in this case to approve by-laws that designate specified places where gang insignia may not be worn or displayed. Parliament actually has a duty to examine proposals that come from local councils and local members have a duty to bring those forward. Local bills should be debated. Banning gangs or patches is not in itself a solution to the gang violence problem but we have a duty as a Parliament to allow local bills to come forward to go to a select committee and to be fairly and appropriately looked at at that level. On that basis I join my colleagues in supporting this bill to go to the select committee for consideration. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15755] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Paraone Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15744] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want some clarification. I know there is a speaking order in terms of different bills and I just want some clarification as to the order for New Zealand First. I know that you said the previous speaker called first but I have been in this House on a number of occasions where people who have not actually had their voice heard first have been given the call because of the precedent that has been set in terms of determining the order of speakers. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Pita Paraone. There is an order and it is agreed but it is a guide. There are two things playing here. The first is that there is a speaking order and it changes on members’ day but this one is the same as per normal. The second thing is that people should call. Sometimes on bills people do not call and I am sitting here looking around the Chamber so I have to weigh up in my mind who calls first and in what order. That is what was playing there. I apologise because I could see you call before and I looked towards you—but it is all yours now.
Wong Pansy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wong Pansy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15716] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to defer asking this question until the Minister of Immigration is in the House next. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15715] 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Which transport operators if any will be exempt from carbon charges under the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: The emissions trading scheme will be phased in over time to cover all gases and all sectors. Oil companies are amongst those that will be required to account for their emissions. We would expect those costs to be passed on to operators in the transport sector operating in New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Can I take it from that answer that coastal shipping will not be exempt; if that is so at the current activity levels can the Minister give the House an approximate idea of what the coastal shipping industry would pay by way of carbon charges? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes the member can take that understanding; my understanding is that the cost will be in the order of $10 a container. Of course the introduction of the emissions trading scheme will mean that the relative position of coastal shipping vis-à-vis road transport will be greatly enhanced. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. How will the emissions trading scheme help New Zealand to reduce its emissions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The scheme is a means by which New Zealand can meet its obligations under Kyoto in a very flexible and cost-effective way—one that is best both for businesses and for households. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that our coastal shipping competes against foreign operators in so much as their vessels carry coastal cargo whilst they are traversing New Zealand waters and can he advise whether foreign vessels will be up for carbon charges under the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding—and obviously I was relatively recently briefed on this matter—that as is the case with GST they would not be. But I am also advised that the member concerned is working very well with my colleague the Minister of Transport on the coastal shipping strategy in order to try to rebalance some of those relativities. I will just say that $10 per container is a pretty minor part of the difference in costs faced. 
Peter Brown 
: I would just like the Minister to confirm that cargo that goes from one port in New Zealand to another port in New Zealand and is carried by a New Zealand coastal ship will cost more than the same container or whatever it is that goes from the same port in New Zealand to another port in New Zealand when it is carried by a foreign ship; do I have a correct understanding there and if I have then what is the advantage in that for New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As that member is aware—and is much more aware than most members of the House are—that is already the case to a much greater extent than is involved in the emissions trading scheme.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15707] 
4.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why has the Government ended the meningococcal B mass immunisation campaign? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The answer is simple: there are now fewer cases of meningococcal B disease. At its peak there were 370 cases per year. Last year that had reduced to just 47. As a result of this dramatic reduction expert clinical advice was that there was no longer a need for a mass immunisation campaign. Meningococcal B disease is insidious: it can kill maim and leave permanently damaged those who contract it. The meningococcal campaign is an example of a health service reacting to and successfully taking action on a serious matter. 
Lesley Soper 
: Do the clinical results of the vaccination programme support the decision to intervene? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. There is clear evidence that the vaccination campaign reduced and curtailed the meningococcal B epidemic. That means dozens of New Zealand children now have limbs and have escaped brain damage who would not have if the battle had not been fought and won. To quote expert Dr Nikki Turner: “The disease was only very slowing waning when the vaccine was introduced. If we’d not used the vaccine we would have had a lot more children with the disease while we were waiting for the rates of infection to drop.” 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Minister commit himself to releasing all of the official data on the meningococcal vaccine and its implementation so that we can get beyond the spin and allow independent researchers to assess whether it was effective why 46 fully immunised children developed the disease and some died why the number of deaths from meningitis has not declined since the vaccine was rolled out whether it was wise to target a million children rather than at-risk groups and also how many serious adverse effects have occurred as a result of the vaccine? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: To take the first of those questions there is I understand a comprehensive peer-reviewed study shortly to be released on the campaign and it does show that the estimated disease rate was 3.7 times higher in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated group and that the vaccine had an overall effectiveness rate of some 73 percent. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer but the question asked whether he would commit himself to releasing all of the official data. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have to remind the member as I have done in the past—and not only that member but other members—that a supplementary question is normally one supplementary question. There were several questions there and therefore the Minister had the choice as to which one he answered.
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15704] 
2.  
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on literacy improvements in our schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: The most recent evaluation of the Labour-led Government’s Literacy Professional Development Project confirms very significant improvements in the reading and writing ability of the estimated 55000 students whose teachers have been helped by the $15 million initiative. Students on the programme improve their reading and writing skills at approximately twice the normal rate with the progress being made by the bottom 20 percent being about double that of the other students on the programme. It is a real case of a gap being closed. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What practical support to lift student achievement does the Literacy Professional Development Project provide? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Since the inception of the Literacy Professional Development Project in 2004 it has worked with 4412 teachers working in 391 schools. It is a 2-year programme with professional development facilitators going into each school to teach the teachers how to use tools that are proven to raise literacy skills. It has been very successful to date. A new cohort of 1124 teachers in 103 schools began the project in February. We are looking forward to seeing the excellent results from the first two cohorts being replicated again. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is this Government gloating about its achievements in improving literacy when the results from last year’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams show quite the opposite—that in fact one in four students could not even meet the NCEA level 1 literacy requirement which is a shameful record of failure after 9 long years of a Labour Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When this Government came into office 50 percent of students could not pass School Certificate English. If the member wants us to drop standards in the way that she is suggesting in order to let students through I can tell her that we will not take that approach. I also say to the member that her policy of exams for 6-year-olds just will not run with this Government. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a document from the national qualifications framework school profile showing that one in four New Zealand students could not meet the level 1 literacy requirement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15703] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The loss of a child is the worst nightmare of any parent. We now have six families of children at the school the parents and family of the teacher the school community and the community at large all working through that nightmare as we speak. The warmth of this House in expressing its condolences we can only hope will wrap itself around these families in their hour of need. We send them from here our best wishes for the strength to work though this extraordinary tragedy that has beset them all. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15703] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party joins with the Prime Minister and the entire House in offering our deep condolences to the families friends the community and all of those directly affected by this horrific tragedy and this great loss. Words almost fail us. But what is very clear is that the entire country is united in its grief over this tragic and inexplicable loss. It is fitting that this entire House say to those families that we sympathise and that we offer them as best we can as a Parliament our condolences. May those young people rest in peace.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15702] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 We often rise in this House to express our sympathy our commiserations or our sense of loss when some prominent figure in New Zealand or elsewhere in the world has suffered a tragedy. But when we do so in respect of six young New Zealanders and their teacher who were going about their normal activity I think it is all the more poignant because it strikes home to all of us—all of us who are parents those of us in this House who have been teachers and all of us who work with young people day in day out—that the loss is immediate and real. 
To the parents they will be struggling with immense emotions at the moment: the shock of the loss the emptiness of rooms that will not be returned to artefacts and mementos around the home that will not be picked up again and I guess that inevitable question of “Why us?”. Well we cannot answer those questions but what we as a House can do is express to the parents to the teachers to the pupils and to the wider community of the Elim Christian College in Auckland our very deepest sympathy as a Parliament and our sense of standing alongside them in their loss and standing alongside them in their grief in the days ahead. 
United Future joins with other parties who have made a call for sympathy today. We respect the memories of those who have died. We stand with them and we ask that they rest in peace.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15702] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with other parties in the House to express our deepest sympathy to the families of Natasha Bray Portia McPhail Huan Hsu Anthony Mulder Floyd Fernandez and Tara Gregory and of their teacher Anthony McLean. There can be nothing so hard to bear as the death of one’s child and I know that the whole country is thinking of those parents and families. Those young people were on an adventure; they were challenging themselves and their courage to tackle the challenges of a mountain and a river. It is really important that young people have the opportunity to do that and preferably to do it in safety and it would also be a tragedy if young people were to be prevented from accepting these challenges from testing themselves and from proving their courage in the outdoors because of these risks. We hope that it can be made a safer experience in the future and they will not be forgotten. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Ka waipuke mai nga roimata mai i te kahui maunga e rere kau ana ki te moana. Ka tangi te awa ka tangi ahau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The tears from the cluster of mountains flood forth and flow to the sea. The river mourns and so do I 
.] 
I stand today extending my gaze from the mountains to the sea thinking of those who have lost their lives in the Mangatepopo Gorge and their whanau. Our tears flow as we think of the tragedy that has occurred within the Tongariro River a tragedy that has dealt a savage blow to the families Elim Christian College as well as the staff of the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre and indeed all who have been involved in this tragic event. No one in this House can imagine the pain that the parents the wider families and the school community must be feeling at this time. We can but express our deepest condolences for young lives lost. 
The whole process of living growing and maturing involves testing boundaries and taking risks. All of those young people—and I include in our thoughts their young teacher—connected through to families who had dreams and aspirations for them that will now not be realised so tenuous is life! The Maori Party has been shocked at the terrible tragedy that took place at the headwaters of the Whanganui River a tragedy that extinguished so much hope and potential. We offer our sincere condolences to all who have been affected.
Peters Winston: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Peters Winston: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15701] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to express the deep sadness and shock of all those in New Zealand First at the tragic loss of the teacher and so many young and valuable lives during the crossing of the Mangatepopo Stream. The search and rescue teams including the police and St John Ambulance are to be commended for their efforts in very very difficult conditions. Our thoughts are with the families and friends colleagues and schoolmates of those who lost their lives in such a sudden and unforeseeable event. We offer our sincere condolences to them.
Key John: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Key John: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15701] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I share with the Prime Minister her expression of the deep sorrow felt by this House as we reflect on the tragic deaths of seven New Zealanders in the Tongariro National Park. Mercifully it is very rare that this Parliament has reason to reflect on a tragedy of this magnitude. It is with great sadness that we do so today. As parents as members of Parliament and as New Zealanders we share an understanding of the unconditional love felt for our children and a sense of the ultimate helplessness felt in the face of events such as these. We can do nothing to lessen their loss but instead extend our sympathy to the victims’ families to the students and staff at Elim Christian College and to the staff of the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre. At this time of great pain we wish that they are able to take strength from their families their communities and their faith. They are firmly in our thoughts. May they rest in peace.
Clark Helen: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
Clark Helen: Motions — Tongariro Tragedy—Elim Christian College 
[Volume:646;Page:15701] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note its deep sorrow at the tragic deaths of six young people and their teacher from Auckland’s Elim Christian College while participating in an outdoor education programme near the Tongariro National Park 
. The tragedy near Tongariro yesterday taking the lives of six high school students and their teacher is the worst nightmare of every family every community and every school. I am sure that the thoughts of every member of this House today will be with those grieving families the school their friends and with the outdoor pursuits centre. Late last night I spoke to Murray Burton the principal of the Elim Christian College and passed on the deep sorrow that I felt for what had happened and the Minister of Education has been at the school this morning. Since late yesterday Government agencies have been engaged in the support of the families and the school community. 
I think that each of us can identify with what has happened. The young people and their teacher were away on what was a great adventure and that great adventure has ended in the tragic loss of life for those seven people in the party. That leaves the families the school and the outdoor pursuits centre in shock and in grief and having to come to terms with what has happened. The Elim Christian College is a faith-based school and as its principal has said today those involved will draw on their faith as they make the difficult journey of coming to terms with what has happened. I believe we all stand united with the families the school and the outdoor pursuits centre today in expressing our deep sorrow at the loss of the lives of these young people and their teacher knowing that two of these young people were indeed to celebrate their 17th birthday this week. They had so much to live for and so much potential. May they rest in peace.
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15251] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I assure Christopher Finlayson that this process is about ongoing review. It is not necessarily the case that any particular part of the Act will be left for 5 years. There are issues around the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and around protecting the right of the organisers of that merchandise. There are a whole lot of other issues. 
I compliment the copyright industry generally. It is now actively working to police what it does to protect and assert its rights and it has employed excellent people like Tony Eaton to assist in that. We are getting very good feedback. I would actually say that the consultation is almost continuous now. I know that the Copyright Council met today. We will get feedback and there will be more legislation. There is no question of that because as long as human beings are innovative they will find ways around any law protecting anything like copyright material. 
I thank members of the Committee for their enthusiasm on this issue and assure them that there will be more of it. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment and that the Committee divided it into two bills; the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill without amendment; and the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Gallagher Martin: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15250] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to say for the benefit of the people who are listening to and viewing this debate tonight that I did love the previous speaker’s reference to 1712. Wow there we go. I am sure that in 2012 it will be roughly time for a further review—300 years; there we go. I am someone who struggles sometimes with the different technologies. I remember the tape recorder we had even before the cassette—the reel tape recorder—and now the Minister tells me about podcasts and iPods. It is a bit sad perhaps that I should have to ask our Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard about these things. But again this legislation is about a very interesting issue. It concerns our young people and the transmission of music and whether we have the appropriate protection for what we would call the corner record store—the DVD store the retailer—and the producers. We have to find out how to work through some of those vexed issues given that to be able to copy is quite easy. 
In summary I would say that this legislation really stresses the fact that intellectual property plays a major role in moving towards a knowledge-based economy. Supporting research and development is critical in achieving an economic transformation and I do not think that we should underestimate the critical importance of this bill. Personally I want to thank very much the individual members from all parties of the Commerce Committee for the tireless work they have done over many many hours in order to help the rest of us to get our heads around what is frankly a very important issue. It is an important issue for this Parliament but it is certainly also important for our nation and our economy. Thank you.
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15248] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I had foreshadowed that the officials were working on a response to Christopher Finlayson’s very useful question about whether simple passwords could be considered a technological protection measure. I think that in most cases they are considered to be an access control. 
The definition of a “technological protection measure” focuses on conduct that is linked to the infringement of copyright and it includes access controls that might be linked to that infringement. So the general issue is whether the intent is to infringe copyright. Of course in some cases the theft of a password is that but there is also the issue that most of us have passwords that are so blindingly obvious they do not provide a particularly high level of security. I know that the information technology services at Parliament recently required people in the Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services to have much more complex passwords. I have to say that with my BlackBerry it takes me longer to get the jolly thing open than it does to read the message quite often. 
The whole issue around technological protection measures and whether access control is a technological protection measure is clarified by Supplementary Order Paper 193 which states that technological protection measures will not be protected if they control only non-infringing activities through an application of an access control. I hope that reassures Chris Finlayson. I acknowledge the issue he raises which occurred to him only this evening as he received the Supplementary Order Paper only this morning. I assure the Committee that I was urging the earliest preparation of that Supplementary Order Paper so that it could be given proper consideration. 
We are also in the process of developing another copyright bill which will be particularly focused on the commissioning rule. In that bill we will have the opportunity to address some of these issues if there is a problem. I thank the honourable member for raising that issue. I hope that he is reassured because I am. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in the name of Gordon Copeland to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15244] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I also want to comment on the technological protection measures just to recap the three main points surrounding that. The purpose was to extend the current technological protection measure provisions so that technological protection measures protect all exclusive rights under copyright—not just copying—and also provide an offence for commercial dealing in technological protection measures circumvention devices means and information and contain provisions to enable users to seek assistance from trusted institutions such as libraries and educational establishments and to break technological protection measures in order to exercise permitted acts under Part 3 of the Act. 
The key changes made to the technological protection measures at the Commerce Committee were to clarify that technological protection measures are designed for purposes other than the protection of copyright for example zoning on DVDs to enable market segmentation is not protected and the provisions to enable users to seek assistance from trusted institutions were simplified so that a user no longer needs to apply to a copyright owner before he or she seeks assistance from a trusted institution. There is also a new ability for the class of trusted institutions to be extended by Order in Council. These amendments were made on the recommendation of the specialist advisers to the Commerce Committee. 
Some of the concerns raised by the public were that that provision did not protect technological protection measures that controlled unauthorised access that the provisions are out of step internationally and that the knowledge requirement for the offence of commercial dealing in technological protection measure devices means it would be very difficult for a prosecution to be maintained. Those concerns were not directly linked to the select committee amendments. However the previous concerns raised similar issues. Although some other countries provide broader protections for technological protection measures that restrict access these provisions have generally been put in place in order to meet obligations under free-trade agreements with the US as with Australia. The knowledge requirement in the offence provision is an important safeguard given the level of penalty that a breach of the provision could give rise to. I thought it was important just to revisit that issue and to raise it this evening. Kia ora.
Burton Mark: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15242] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I am interested in the final comment made by Dr Worth. I suspect that this legislation will not last another century. It will probably need revisiting before that time when he predicts there will be a change of Government. In the meantime I think there is much to do with the matter before the Committee. 
I think we should remind ourselves that the purpose of the technological protection measures provisions is to give copyright owners a more comprehensive right relating to the protection of technological protection measures in response to technological developments and travelling with that the increased risk of piracy of copyright works in the digital environment. Central to this legislation is a recognition of the fundamental shift and change that have taken place in technologies. Copyright owners are increasingly using technological protection measures as a practical means to protect their copyright and of course to assist in the development of new business models. 
The Act currently allows—and I think Dr Worth made some reference to this—copyright owners to take action against persons who supply or manufacture devices means or information that are specifically designed to circumvent the copy protection and that are intended to be used to make infringing copies or copyright works. The copyright owner will have the ability to take action in respect of devices means or information where circumvention could enable infringement of all the copyright owners’ exclusive rights not just copying. This is cognisant of the increasing importance of the rights of communication and the necessary incentives for the provision of online and digital services. 
Clause 89 inserts into the Copyright Act new section 226C which I do not think Dr Worth visited. The section is a criminal offence provision in limited circumstances where there has been large-scale commercial dealing in circumvention devices information or services and is intended to provide a necessary deterrent. Dr Worth made passing reference to new sections 226D and 226E which enable the actual exercise of permitted acts where technological protection measures have been applied. The provisions provide a person wishing to exercise a permitted act who does not himself or herself have the ability to circumvent with the option of seeking assistance from the copyright owner or certain trusted organisations—so-called qualified persons. A “qualified person” means a prescribed library an archive or an educational establishment. 
There were a number of Commerce Committee amendments that I will not go into in any detail at this time. But I am sure that as we progress through our consideration of this part there will be some discussion of those amendments and I may take another call to add to that general discussion.