edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14980] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to the very example in McGee where it indicates that “certain amendments had been made to it and the money saved expended in other ways”. That is something that could also have been dealt with in the Committee stage of the legislation—at least according to the book by the previous Clerk of the House and based on the one example the one precedent example that is given there and my understanding is that that goes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill back in 1939. So the precedents are not new for this sort of change and the advice I have received is that there has been no change in the Standing Orders that would change that. 
So I reiterate that although it might be an alternative to deal with this in the Committee stage—and I am sure there will be discussions in Committee about quite a large number of alternatives—the fact that it may be dealt with there does not mean it has to be. The example given—money saved being expended in different ways—is something that could also be dealt with very easily within the Committee stage. A finance bill or a Reserve Bank bill are the obvious cases. The case now is that—
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
[Volume:668;Page:14938] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker given that assurance from the Minister about the total lack of a relationship between the two would you like to review your ruling?
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
[Volume:668;Page:14937] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement last night regarding changes to widen the qualifying criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in his application acknowledges that legislation is to be introduced today that relates to one aspect of the agreement between the New Zealand Government and Warner Bros relating to the 
 Hobbit 
 movies. The member’s application relates to another element of that agreement. 
The test for whether a particular case of recent occurrence requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. It is relevant when considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation and whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. In addition to today’s legislation there will be other opportunities to consider the criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. Select committees are currently considering financial reviews and there was a question for oral answer today. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14937] 
12. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What results have been achieved to date by the recent ICT trade delegation he led to China? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Many of the companies that participated in the delegation are following up very strong leads facilitated by their meetings last week with some of China’s largest information and communications technology firms. For example Tomizone is looking to increase its roll-out of Wi-Fi hotspots in two Chinese cities Datacom is looking to develop service centres for new Chinese customers and Mobile Mentor is negotiating with China Unicom to provide training in the use of new smart phones. The delegation facilitated introductions between New Zealand firms and some of the largest information and communications technology providers in the world. Deals that could result would bring millions of dollars of value into the New Zealand economy and would demonstrate our firms’ abilities to compete in the world’s fastest-growing information and communications technology market. 
Melissa Lee 
: What feedback has he received from companies who participated in the recent information and communications technology trade delegation to China? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: All participants greatly valued participating in the delegation and the reception they were given by their Chinese counterparts. Thanks to the excellent work by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade they were given high-level access to executives in large companies. Opening doors to some of China’s largest information and communications technology firms is not easy but the New Zealand firms have demonstrated their preparedness and have impressed their Chinese colleagues. This was the sixth such delegation to China this year which underlines the Government’s determination to continue to grow our trade and orient New Zealand to the export-led growth that we need to both grow the country faster and create more jobs.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14934] 
10. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What recent reports has he received on the value of tourism to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I have seen some great reports most notably the Tourism Satellite Account prepared by Statistics New Zealand for the year ended March 2010. It shows that a record $22.4 billion was spent by international and domestic tourists up from $21.9 billion in the previous year. Spending by international tourists increased by $150 million during this period making tourism New Zealand’s largest export earner worth $9.5 billion to the New Zealand economy. That demonstrates the value of tourism to the New Zealand economy and shows that the Government’s decision to put an extra $50 million into tourism over the past 2 years was an excellent one. 
Todd McClay 
: What reports has the Minister seen on growth in tourism numbers from Australia and how has the Government encouraged tourist visitations from Australia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We always knew that Australian visitors would be vital to keeping the sector going through the recession. In 2009-10 Tourism New Zealand worked with regional tourism organisations and commercial airlines to promote New Zealand to Australians and $10 million was spent on joint ventures. So it is good to announce that Statistics New Zealand figures show that in the year ended September 2010 visitor numbers from Australia were up by 7 percent to 1.122 million. It is clear that this Government initiative has paid off. 
Todd McClay 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to increase awareness of the New Zealand tourism brand overseas? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Last night the Government announced that it has agreed to work together in a long-term strategic partnership with Warner Bros to promote New Zealand as both a film production and tourism destination. New Zealand will also host one of the premieres of the  
Hobbit 
 movies. These arrangements are likely to be worth tens of millions of dollars to the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand tourism sector. It is a further example that this Government is looking to increase the value of tourism to New Zealand and to grow the economy.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14933] 
8. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Why is his Government intending to change industrial relations law under urgency instead of through the normal parliamentary process? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Because it will ensure the incomes of many hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders and will lead to a very large contribution to the overall economy. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Minister in legislation as he has presented it overturning a decision of the Supreme Court from 2005 at the request of Warner Bros? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not presented the legislation to the House nor has Warner Bros made that request. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Government’s readiness to acquiesce to Warner Bros’ demands encourage other overseas film companies to push for more tax breaks and expect the Government to take their side in disputes with local workers; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the Government’s intention to bring legislation to the House to amend the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme to incorporate the enhancements that the Prime Minister agreed to yesterday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Work is being undertaken to determine whether it is a legislative change or a policy change. 
Keith Locke 
: Would our pride in the 
 Hobbit 
 movie being produced in New Zealand not be enhanced if we knew that our actors were guaranteed the same right as their counterparts in other Western countries to collectively press their claims for decent pay and working conditions? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the questioner misunderstands how the industry works in New Zealand and assumes that people engaged on these productions are poorly treated. They are not. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about whether actors were poorly treated by their employers. My question asked whether they had the right to collectively press their claims for decent pay and working conditions. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the Minister dodged the question. He answered the question in the way that he saw fit and I cannot be too pedantic about exactly how the Minister should answer.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14931] 
6. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve coastal management? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that I will be recommending that the Governor-General approve the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement which meets the Government’s promise to provide more national guidance for local authorities to meet their obligations under the Resource Management Act. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement will provide stronger direction on natural character outstanding landscapes and biodiversity; provide updated policy on managing coastal hazards; and emphasise the priority the Government places on public access to the coast. I thank the board of inquiry for its contribution to this new policy statement. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What new types of protection will be included in the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am very pleased to announce for a start that some of New Zealand’s finest surf breaks will receive additional protection and recognition as being nationally significant. Those surf breaks are in Northland Raglan Coromandel Gisborne Taranaki Kaikoura and Otago. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What will be the practical impact of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which allows iwi and hapu to take part in statutory conservation processes within their relevant common marine and coastal area? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In noting that the bill is the responsibility of the Attorney-General I point out that the practical impact of the universal award which provides for iwi and hapu to take part in statutory conservation processes is that it formalises many of the current practices of the department’s consultation with iwi and hapu. These include processes relating to marine reserve applications marine mammal sanctuaries permits for marine mammal watching and proposals to extend conservation protected areas. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What is envisaged will be the effect of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which allows iwi and hapu with recognised customary marine title the right to give or withhold permission for specified conservation activities and the right to participate in certain conservation decisions? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: If iwi or hapu gain customary title they have a right of refusal over whether marine reserves or conservation protected areas are established or concessions granted in the customary title area. The right relating to marine reserves and conservation-protected areas is subject to an essential-protection purposes test which the Minister of Conservation may use to override the customary titleholder’s view. In using the test the Minister must have regard to the views of the customary title holder and other criteria set out in the bill including protection of rare or unique habitats.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14928] 
4. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What recent announcements has he made that help businesses to undertake research and development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Last Wednesday I announced further steps in the Government’s innovation strategy. This is one of the six elements of the Government’s economic growth strategy. Six research institutions have been approved to undertake research and development for the voucher scheme. This is a scheme for small to medium enterprises under which they can essentially get a voucher worth around $100000 and perhaps up to $1000000 matched one-for-one by the businesses and they get their research done by these institutions. The initial six institutions are the University of Auckland Otago University the University of Canterbury Auckland University of Technology WelTec and Industrial Research Ltd covering of course polytechnics universities and Crown research institutes in order to cover the full range of participating research institutions. There will be more announcements down the track. 
Colin King 
: What other announcements has he made? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: On 6 October I also announced a TechNZ grant of $3.7 million to Compac Sorting Equipment an excellent company in Auckland—in Maungakiekie in fact. It is a niche producer that has 40 percent of the global market in its sector and exports to 30 countries. It increased its revenue by 20 percent. It is that kind of commitment that really drives growth. I should also mention the grant of $5.8 million to Weta Digital which was announced in July 2009. That was to be matched 2:1 by Weta Digital. Of course that kind of grant only matters if films can actually be made in New Zealand. 
David Shearer 
: How has the Minister explained to businesses that the amount of money for research and development under his grants scheme is less than half of what they would have received under the 15 percent tax credit and that they now need to apply to a Government bureaucracy that will decide whether their research and development is worthy of funding? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The very first thing businesses say to me is how pleased they are to have a National Government in office because of the responsible fiscal management that we undertake rather than the wasteful expenditure of the previous Government. They are very pleased to have the more targeted approach that the Government has announced rather than the discredited tax credit scheme of the previous Government. The system is seen as effective focused and driving innovation.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:14923] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Regular viewers of Parliament TV will be noting the difference between “this day” and “today” in the parliamentary procedure I am sure. We thank the Leader of the House for that—the subtle hint. I wonder whether he can tell us whether in the next sitting period that the House will undertake after the adjournment it is his intention to use one of those weeks for an urgency week.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14926] 
2. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister for Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have undertaken a number of activities to secure the film industry in New Zealand. I have been looking closely at the capacity constraints that will hold back the expansion of this industry in New Zealand. I have examined closely the commercial motivations of the major studios to bring productions to New Zealand. I have helped bring the parties together to update the guidelines for the Pink Book something that has not happened since the Australian union showed up in 2005. I have had ongoing discussions with New Line Cinema and Warner Bros and over the past couple of days it has been my privilege to assist the Prime Minister to bring those talks to a successful conclusion which will ensure that the two mega-budget  
Hobbit  
movies will be filmed in New Zealand. That will lead to further expansion of our already $2.8 billion screen production industry. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What benefit will New Zealand gain from hosting the production of the two  
Hobbit  
movies? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The  
Hobbit  
movies are some of the most expensive films ever produced anywhere in the world and the majority of that expenditure will be in the New Zealand economy. The promotional value of those movies is also obvious to any New Zealander.  
The Lord of the Rings  
has become part of our national identity. In addition we have formed a long-term strategic partnership with Time Warner group. That will work for us in assisting the promotion of New Zealand’s trade tourism and creative industries. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he rethinking his view that spending $140000 a year on relationship-building exercises around the Oscars is a waste of money contrasting it with the $33 million extra and the loss of sovereignty that his neglect of the relationship has resulted in? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think it would have mattered how many expensive Trevor Mallard - style cocktail parties we had held in Los Angeles. The fact is that the moment an Australian union decided it was going to engage in industrial actions in this country this film was in trouble. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he seen the email from Stephen Carroll the vice-president of Warner Bros pictures of 18 October US time referring to the solution that had been reached at a meeting that Mr Brownlee chaired on the 14th ? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know what the gentleman was talking about. No solutions related to  
The Hobbit  
were reached on the date the member quotes.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:14923] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. Some time ago I advised the Business Committee that the second week of the November sitting would be a week where we would have urgency. As agreed the bills that will be dealt with by the House during that time will be made available towards the end of next week to Opposition parties. It is our intention that urgency will be called on Tuesday afternoon but that the House would still lift by 6 o’clock on Thursday of that week. The purpose of this is to give the House effectively twice as much time in that week to deal with bills on the Order Paper.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
[Volume:668;Page:14938] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Mallard clearly as a member of one of the Opposition parties that was provided with the bill earlier in the day knows its content. He will also know that it is an extremely narrow bill. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to rule that where a bill is presented to the House matters completely unrelated to that bill—completely unrelated to that bill—can be part of the debate on that bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:14923] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will rise at the end of this day. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 November the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill will receive its first reading. The Government will look to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper; there will be some new introductions. Wednesday of the first week back 10 November will be a members’ day.
Voting — Correction—Urgency 
Voting — Correction—Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14945] 
Voting 
Correction—Urgency 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The vote on the urgency motion was incorrectly announced. The record will be changed to read the result as Ayes 68 Noes 51.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:14923] 
Thursday 28 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will rise at the end of this day. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 November the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill will receive its first reading. The Government will look to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper; there will be some new introductions. Wednesday of the first week back 10 November will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Regular viewers of Parliament TV will be noting the difference between “this day” and “today” in the parliamentary procedure I am sure. We thank the Leader of the House for that—the subtle hint. I wonder whether he can tell us whether in the next sitting period that the House will undertake after the adjournment it is his intention to use one of those weeks for an urgency week. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. Some time ago I advised the Business Committee that the second week of the November sitting would be a week where we would have urgency. As agreed the bills that will be dealt with by the House during that time will be made available towards the end of next week to Opposition parties. It is our intention that urgency will be called on Tuesday afternoon but that the House would still lift by 6 o’clock on Thursday of that week. The purpose of this is to give the House effectively twice as much time in that week to deal with bills on the Order Paper.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15005] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after “force” and substitute “1 April 2012”.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14727] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a question with you and seek your advice on the lodging of questions to the Associate Minister of Education with responsibility for special education. That person is Rodney Hide. It seems that he may be in the House today and will be answering on behalf of the Minister of Education. I understand from the Clerk’s Office that I cannot put a question to Rodney Hide as Associate Minister because the Government has not yet provided delegations to the Clerk’s Office. In fact I could put a question to the Hon Heather Roy because as far as the Clerk’s Office is concerned she still has the delegation. This is difficult for two reasons. One reason is that yesterday Mr Hide made a comprehensive announcement about the review of special education and we should be able to hold him accountable in the House for that today. Maybe he will now answer on behalf of the Minister but as far as we know he has the delegations. Anne Tolley put out a press release on 7 September announcing Mr Hide’s delegations. It seems particularly difficult for the Opposition to hold a Minister to account if we cannot actually ask him questions in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises a perfectly legitimate point of order. The facts of the matter are that where a delegation of responsibility is made to an Associate Minister by the Government the Speaker and the House must be informed if questions are to be lodged as addressed to the Associate Minister. Delegations presented to the House on 29 July 2010 have not been re-presented to the House to take account of recent ministerial changes. The Speaker must know the nature of the delegation in order to determine whether a question is in order so I cannot accept questions to a supposed Associate Minister if I do not have that determination from the Government. Of course any Minister can answer the question. That is a matter for the Government.
Peachey Allan: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14697] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It was a privilege that I enjoyed to chair the Education and Science Committee hearings into the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and I notice in the gallery this evening a number of people whom I met during that process arguing both in favour of and against the bill. I say to those people how much I enjoyed the meetings and discussions I had with them and what a high level of respect I developed for their commitment and their ability to put their arguments in a reasonable and logical way. 
Clearly some of the submitters will be disappointed in the outcome. Of course this was always going to come down to the view of National. ACT went into the hearings clearly very very strongly in support of the bill and obviously its opinion did not move. Labour and the Greens were equally adamantly against the bill and did not move. But many of us were involved in resolving the balance between the right that students like any other New Zealanders have to freedom of association against the benefits that were being argued to derive from compulsory membership of students associations. 
I was quite intrigued by the argument put up that the best way to guarantee freedom of association was actually to maintain compulsory membership. It was a view for which I could not find any substance in political theory or in common sense though I admired the effort that was being made to advance it. But at the end of the day the decision to support this measure comes down to the fact that those of us on this side of the House believe very very strongly in freedom of association and individual responsibility. I have every confidence that the good students associations will not only survive but thrive. Some of the associations that I visited were in fact prosperous successful businesses. They have the potential to remain prosperous successful businesses. They will just have to operate in a different environment and I wish them well in that endeavour. 
I conclude by thanking all the members of the select committee for their contribution; the advisers who were very patient and long-suffering; and all the submitters for their reasonableness their consideration and their thoughtfulness. I repeat what I have just said: it was a pleasure to get to know many of those young people. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14674] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
Goodhew Jo: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14671] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill to now have its third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14636] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. I note that the question as written starts with “Will his amendment …”—I am assuming it is to the Attorney-General. I am asking about the ability of the member to ask a question on a document that Parliament has not seen at this point in time. I am supposing that the amendment referred to is a Supplementary Order Paper that Parliament has not yet seen. Therefore I question the relevance of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises an interesting point of order and I might seek a little advice on it. Obviously the primary question has already passed scrutiny but I am aware of what has caused the member to raise the point of order. Normally matters that are before a select committee for example cannot be the subject of questions unless they have been reported back to the House. However the supposed amendment being referred to here as I understand it is not before a select committee so I do not think it would be covered by any issues there. I think the issue that is relevant here is the Minister has talked about a possible amendment to the legislation and there is no requirement for a Supplementary Order Paper to be lodged for it to be referred to in a question. It is my ruling that the question is in order.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14644] 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: Does she intend to propose any changes to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill as reported back from select committee; if so what? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No; I am happy with the bill in its current form. However all members of the House will have the opportunity during the Committee of the whole House to put forward any amendments they wish. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can she confirm that 98 percent of the 4837 submissions on the bill opposed it including submissions from every tertiary institution and does this not give her cause to change the bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I think that is probably a question best asked of the chair of the Education and Science Committee. However I understand that there were 4837 submissions including 4418 form submissions. Given the emails over the last 2 days that were facilitated by the New Zealand University Students’ Association where many people who were purported to have sent the emails did not actually send them it is difficult to say whether the form submissions actually came from those they were supposed to have come from. However I will say that around 300 of the submissions were substantive and of very high quality and provided the committee with evidence it needed.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14643] 
12. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What is happening throughout New Zealand to assist the nation to “Get Ready” and “Get Thru”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Today Exercise Tangaroa is being held. Across the regions and nationally this exercise will put us to the test and will be used to assess the capability of civil defence. The exercise is a national multi-agency exercise led by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management and supported by 16 civil defence emergency management groups central government departments emergency services lifeline utilities and other agencies. It is important that New Zealanders are ready to “Get Thru”. 
John Hayes 
: What is happening in Wellington to “Get Ready” and “Get Thru”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The National Crisis Management Centre staffed by the ministry and others is busy coordinating the efforts of the civil defence management groups and their exercise activities. Locally Wellington civil defence like many other areas will use this exercise as an opportunity to sound their tsunami sirens. However there may be circumstances such as an inshore tsunami in Cook Strait where there may not be enough time to activate sirens so the message clearly is that New Zealanders have to be aware of the threats and be ready to “Get Thru”.
Vote: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14625] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Identity Information Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Kaye Nikki: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14624] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am so pleased to take a call on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. As Dr Rajen Prasad has already said this evening a number of the arguments for it have already been canvassed so I will take a very brief call. 
Firstly I say that I have been the victim of identity fraud. I was overseas when it happened. Someone swiped my credit card and I ended up in a pretty difficult situation so I know what it feels like to have that happen. But much more serious situations can occur when individuals’ identities are stolen which causes a lot of grief to the families involved. 
This is very important legislation. It is modernising legislation. We are very clear that this bill is about giving the private sector and public agencies the ability to better cross-check information and I think that there has not been a speaker in this House who has not agreed with that. 
I will touch on a couple of issues that the select committee will have to deal with. The first is the issue of consent which has been well canvassed and the need to balance that with any privacy considerations. The term that will be crucial is what constitutes identity information. Finally there will need to be a real focus on the conditions that an agency can use for the confirmation of the service. One positive aspect of the legislation is the fact that the Privacy Commissioner will have to provide a report on how the confirmation service is going. 
I am very pleased to make a brief call on this bill this evening. It is an important bill to combat identity fraud. I commend this bill to the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14616] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committee consider the Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 March 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
McClay Todd: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
McClay Todd: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14615] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I start a very brief intervention on the Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill by paying tribute to Bill Bird for his leadership and vision. I know that Bill put great effort and much of his life force into this agreement. Although sadly he cannot be here with us in person I know he will be here in spirit and that he will be celebrating this event in another place. 
I recognise and welcome the people of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare: those who have travelled to be here in this House today and those who are at home watching on television in Minginui and in Murupara and in the places in between. I have spent a great deal of time in Murupara as a local MP hunting and fishing in the area as well as performing my work and I recently visited Minginui for meetings with the local community. It is a vibrant and rich part of New Zealand: vibrant because of the plentiful rivers and the great forests and rich because of the people who live there who are proud of their heritage and who are proud of their culture. 
As a local MP I was honoured to join Mr Finlayson and colleagues Te Ururoa Flavell and Mita Ririnui for the signing of the agreement in principle at the marae at Ngati Manawa. We were made very welcome there on that day and we put aside the politics of this place to join together in support of a people as we do so here again. 
For those in this House who have declared that they have visited Murupara only once I invite them to return there very soon if not before the end of the year and to come and join us early next year when we will have the Parliamentary Rugby Team playing in Murupara. The people of Murupara and that area are warm and friendly but I suggest that the welcome may not be so warm on the rugby field that day. 
For my part as a local MP I say that I look forward to this bill passing through the House in its remaining stages and I wish my colleagues well in working together whilst it is in the select committee. I wanted to briefly show my support to the people who have travelled here to the people of the area and to the people whom I have the great honour and pleasure to represent. Kia ora. 
Bill read a first time.
Robertson H V Ross: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14616] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Tena koe matua Lindsay Tisch. I thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the call because only last week on Thursday evening prior to the House rising at 6 o’clock I was addressing the very important issue of identity fraud. It is an important issue one that has taken the time of this House and now I have the opportunity to complete my address. What we have to do is discuss this whole issue and the Identity Information Confirmation Bill needs to go through this House and off to a select committee. 
The bill provides great assistance to companies that need to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. In supporting this legislation one has to be ever mindful about the issue of privacy. We on this side of the House are really concerned about issues relating to privacy. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Dr Ashraf Choudhary agrees wholeheartedly with that. We have Big Brother syndrome we have the excessive powers of the State and we have state-of-the-art technology and everywhere people go today there are closed-circuit television cameras all around the place. So we are mindful of privacy but we also know that that needs to be balanced with the issue of identity fraud. 
Here are some facts for New Zealanders about identity fraud which I found fascinating when I was having a look at the issue. The average amount of money lost due to fraud in New Zealand in 2009 was $1.5 million. The top four types of fraud reported are false invoicing which is very prevalent; theft; bribery and corruption; and of course lending fraud. Ninety percent of those responsible for managing the risks of fraud do not hold any form of fraud management or investigation qualification. 
Forty-two percent of New Zealand businesses were affected by identity fraud during the year. New Zealand police identified 900 cases of identity fraud in New Zealand last year but they believe that they are only a fraction of the number of cases that actually occur. In a high-profile case of identity fraud New Zealand fraudster Wayne Thomas Patterson was sentenced to 8 years in prison after being convicted of using 123 different identities. He stole $3.4 million in benefits in 2007. 
Let me conclude by saying that we support this bill’s referral to a select committee but we are ever mindful of privacy concerns and we will be paying very close attention to the views and the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Who’s we? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: We I say to Mr Simon Power are the members of the Opposition. We are concerned about the issues of privacy on this side of the House even if the member on the Government benches might not be. We are concerned we will take notice of any recommendations that the Privacy Commissioner puts forward during the select committee process and we will take those recommendations seriously. It is obvious that the Hon Simon Power does not care about privacy. Tihei mauri ora.
Bridges Simon: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14614] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. It is a pleasure to speak on the Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge that as with any good settlement it has been some time coming. In November 2003 the Crown recognised the mandates of iwi and it took through to December last year for each runanga to sign a deed of settlement in order to settle all outstanding historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. I acknowledge as well of course that these settlements are part of a much bigger picture in which the Government is delivering on its promise to complete full durable settlements of the remaining historical Treaty grievances by 2014 whereby we recognise the wrongs of the past help iwi unlock economic potential and provide a welcome economic boost particularly in regional and provincial areas such as those we are dealing with here. 
It seems that debate on this bill has been an evening of anecdotes but I have not spent a lot of time in the areas that are being settled here. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tauranga? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: No Murupara. I had I suppose a rather stressful time—although in hindsight it had a good ending—trekking around in the Ureweras with my wife and friends. 
Hone Harawira 
: Stumble across anybody’s dack? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: No. We were coming home in a Subaru when the petrol tank was opened up on the gravel road. We managed to putt into Murupara and spent the night in the local motel there. 
Hone Harawira 
: Which one? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I do not know what it was called; there is only one I think—next to the petrol station. Then we went across to the tavern where we experienced some of the best hospitality we had had and certainly the best kai we had had all trip. On the trek we were eating baked beans which my wife complained about because they weighed the packs down too much. 
It is indeed an area of beautiful people and beautiful land. Some members have talked already about that beauty and about the Kaingaroa forests and areas of ancient giant podocarps that David Bellamy I think waxed lyrical about years in the past. So it is good that today and this evening we are coming close to finishing the journey and to settling the claims of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare. It is a pleasure as I say to be part of the process.