edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Horomia Parekura: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15872] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe. The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill is significant legislation that transfers ownership of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. It also recognises the historical connections and ancestral associations of Waitaha. The bill recognises the enormous significance of Mauao to the tangata whenua. It recognises the mana of Mauao and it raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Maori. 
This bill will vest the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of Tauranga Moana iwi. The trustees will be the registered proprietors of Mauao and the Tauranga City Council will continue to administer and manage the Mauao historic reserve in consultation with the iwi who are represented on its Mauao steering group. The trustees will own Mauao but the Crown will continue to bear the burden of any legal or financial responsibility. This is currently divulged to the Tauranga City Council under the Reserves Act. Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha are represented on the Tauranga City Council’s steering group. Together these measures will ensure that Mauao is returned to the tangata whenua. Mauao will continue to be accessible to all New Zealanders and it will be protected from commercialisation or alienation. 
I commend the members of the Maori Affairs Committee especially the chairman Dave Hereora in relation to the consistency and the dedication that they have shown in bringing cognisance and true recognition to nationhood. At times platitudes were thrown around but the practices were forthright. The thought that Bob Clarkson will roam up at every Treaty day is certainly something and it will be a sight to watch alongside Mita Ririnui. The fact that Ngapuhi came down and went back with the waka is an issue. It is a beacon of history and it is certainly a point of contact for our people as a nation. I again commend the select committee the submitters and all those people who have been involved especially the iwi. Kia ora tatou. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Clarkson Bob: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Clarkson Bob: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15871] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
:  
When this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill concerning the Mount came up for debate I took a lot of interest in it. I joined the select committee that was dealing with the issue and I took an active interest in making sure we had a lasting agreement. It concerned me—and I spoke out about it—that the original layout of the bill was a bit of a Clayton’s deal. I was most concerned that this bill would be signed into law and then the debate about ownership would start all over again—we discussed that at the select committee—and go on for the next 20 years. I say that if we are going to do these settlements let us do them in such a way that they last in perpetuity—that is a big word for me. I believe that with small alterations such as the ones the select committee has recommended we will have a great end result. As I have said I am happy to have been a part of the select committee and part of getting a good result whereby both the Maori groups and the Government are happy. 
This bill protects people’s rights to use the walkways etc. without cost. I believe I have been part of building a healthy relationship between the Crown Maori groups and the public in sorting out this bill. If this was a deal in the public sector I would say we had a willing seller and a willing buyer. Everybody walks away happy. I congratulate the people involved on the select committee from both sides of the Chamber and all outside parties. Thank you.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
[Volume:647;Page:15853] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am certainly not prepared to accept that last statement from that member particularly given his track record. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Did he ask for an apology? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes he did. When he said that he was not prepared to accept that statement I took that to be that he was asking for a withdrawal and an apology. Could the member withdraw and apologise. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
[Volume:647;Page:15849] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision by the Government to buy Toll Holdings Ltd’s rail and ferry operations. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Given the significance of the decision I consider it does require the immediate attention of the House and I therefore accept the application. I call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent importance.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:15848] 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What progress has been made in modernising the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s helicopter fleet? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There has been enormous progress. Last week I signed a contract to purchase AgustaWestland A109 light utility and training helicopters to complement the Government’s earlier decision to purchase NH90 medium utility helicopters. The purchase moves our much-used helicopter fleet several generations forward—from technology that was employed in the Korean War and Viet Nam War—to the current century. It will give our air force state-of-the-art technology. This is a further example of the Labour-led Government’s rebuilding of the defence force after a decade of neglect under the former National Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: How do the capabilities of the AgustaWestland A109 compare with the current Sioux training helicopter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There really is no comparison: one is a basic training aircraft that carries two people; the other is a 21st century aircraft. The AgustaWestland A109 is twin-engined and has an integrated digital cockpit which is necessary for high-level training. It is equipped with ballistic protection to make sure our defence force personnel are well looked after. It has a secure communications system. It has automated auto-pilot and is configured for night flying. The other real advantage of this aircraft is that it is wheeled and therefore can be used on our naval fleet which of course will expand by six further ships this year. 
Darien Fenton 
: How versatile are the new helicopters compared with those they are replacing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Rather than being used just for basic training this aircraft can be used for a variety of purposes. Obviously it can be used for advanced training for the NH90s and the Seasprites—the Sioux certainly could not have been used for that. It can be used for counter-terrorism search and rescue deployment of forces and disaster relief. This aircraft flies twice as fast for twice the distance carrying three times as many people as the old Sioux and it is capable of carrying under-slung loads of up to 500 kilograms. This is a great purchase. The Royal New Zealand Air Force is very grateful that it has a Government that looks after its equipment needs and does not leave obsolete equipment in place like the National Government did for 9 years and for which it is still apologising.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:15845] 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied that police support for or opposition to bail conditions are given appropriate consideration in bail decisions made by the High Court? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 As Minister of Police it is not appropriate for me to comment on decisions made by our independent judiciary. Police have the opportunity to put before the High Court their views on bail for particular individuals. The High Court judge in each case will consider the police views along with other relevant information. 
Ron Mark 
: Can she confirm that police did oppose the relaxation of bail conditions for Tame Iti that allowed him to go dancing around the world; if so why did they oppose it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is my understanding that the police did oppose bail for Tame Iti but I am not able to give the reasons why they did that. It is their duty to put before the High Court judge their reasons regarding bail; it is up to the judge to decide on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Is she satisfied that police would take account of genuine reasons for relaxing bail conditions such as allowing travel to visit sick relatives receiving medical treatment or attending a tangi and would she agree that it would be consistent with the public interest for police to oppose bail conditions that would allow a suspect to take part in a jaunt through Europe at the taxpayers’ expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on an individual case but I would like to say that it is not unnatural for the police to have one view on the merits or otherwise of a particular bail application and for the judiciary—who have the responsibility to come to a decision—to come to a decision different from that of the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Is she aware that the High Court’s decision to ignore police opposition to amending these bail conditions has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and would she see his comments as a slap in the face for police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I am not aware of that. I certainly think that all members of Parliament need to be incredibly careful in commenting on decisions made by the court. We do hold to the principle that we have the separation of powers in New Zealand and the independence of the judiciary is an important independence just as this Parliament holds to itself the right to make laws.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:15844] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When was a Minister of Immigration first informed about allegations relating to Mary Anne Thompson’s involvement in assisting family members from Kiribati with immigration matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: The Minister was advised that it was sometime in April 2007. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action did the Minister of Immigration take at the time to address the serious allegations raised about the involvement of the head of the Immigration Service in securing immigration assistance for her family members? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the Minister was informed that an inquiry was about to be undertaken. It was not therefore a matter for the Minister to take action on; action was already under way. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action then did the Minister take on receipt of the Oughton report in July last year—a report that clearly identified senior managers within the Immigration Service directing staff members to break Government policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The matters involved in that respect of course are employment matters within the Immigration Service and they are the responsibility of the chief executive under section 33 of the State Sector Act. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was the Oughton report not publicly released upon its completion in July last year and why was so much effort made to prevent the Oughton report becoming public given the great difficultly experienced by Television New Zealand in securing the report under the Official Information Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The chief executive advised that the Oughton report pertained to matters relating to individual employees. Therefore of course it is not a matter for Ministers to become involved with; it is a matter for the chief executive to make decisions on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the secrecy surrounding the Oughton report from July last year until its grudging release in April this year demonstrate Government Ministers were complicit in an attempted cover-up of repeated breaches of immigration policy—I repeat immigration policy—by departmental managers; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No; the matter related to individual employees and therefore is the responsibility of the chief executive. I note yet again the implication from the National Party that if in Government it will break the law and intervene in employment matters.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
[Volume:647;Page:15833] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I know that members have not seen each other for a while but perhaps they could keep their conversations to a minimal level or take them into the lobby. I will also ask those responsible for the sound system to check that it is in fact operating properly.
Guy Nathan: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
Guy Nathan: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
[Volume:647;Page:15833] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but I could not hear any of what the Clerk was communicating to us.
Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
Points of Order — Chamber—Sound 
[Volume:647;Page:15833] 
Tuesday 13 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Sound 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but I could not hear any of what the Clerk was communicating to us. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I know that members have not seen each other for a while but perhaps they could keep their conversations to a minimal level or take them into the lobby. I will also ask those responsible for the sound system to check that it is in fact operating properly.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14682] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am dumbfounded. The Prime Minister came into the Parliament at the beginning of the year and said that this Government was going to deal with the problem that it had created of huge compliance costs in the building industry. Now we have the Minister introducing to the House and advancing before the Committee the Building Amendment Bill which does exactly the opposite of that. 
I want to firstly deal with clause 92 which the Minister referred to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14678] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 It is necessary for me to follow my colleague from Northland. Unlike the previous speaker the content of my speech will be inversely related to the length of the delivery. It will be very short and it will remind our friends on the Opposition benches that Part 2 is a very modest part. It contains a slender number of clauses. I would encourage you Mr Chairman to dedicate your not inconsiderable powers of attention in the direction of those members to ensure that they stick to the script. It is important that their commentary is related to levies project information memoranda and also certificates of compliance. 
Part 2 is a simple set of transitional provisions. It is not necessary to have the wild florid flights of fancy that we are hearing from Mr Carter aided by two formerly friendly members of the rugby team. I would encourage those members and I would encourage you Mr Chairman—not that I would ever say or do anything for fear of offending the longstanding Tarara relationship between us—to dedicate in those members’ direction a bit of supervision in order to ensure that they stick to the technical nature of the provisions. Opposition members should not try to relitigate the purpose of the reforms. That is a fair debating point but not at this very wearisome hour in the evening when there is no real reason as to why this legislation should not shoot forward like water going out of the well-constructed pipe referred to by the man from Ninety Mile Beach. Thank you very much.
Jones Dail: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14671] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to say very much on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill because everything has been said. It is very simple legislation. No amendments were made at the Commerce Committee and only one amendment seems to be proposed for the Committee stage. Perhaps there is something else on its way in a minor fashion. 
But I listened to Dr Coleman’s speech when he was talking about Labour’s secret agenda on this matter. It made me think as a member of New Zealand First about what National’s secret agenda might be for Television New Zealand. I am sure that National’s secret agenda for Television New Zealand is to flog it off to the first foreign buyer it can find. It is such a secret agenda that Dr Coleman does not know about it yet. But everyone else in the country knows about it and I say to Dr Coleman that if we are going to talk about secret agendas and if he wants to widen the debate on an issue he has to expect someone to respond in a similar way. If he wants to be so inexperienced as to allow someone to take advantage of doing that I will respond to his comments briefly. 
There is a difference between New Zealand First and the National Party. We support the retention of New Zealand assets for New Zealanders. We support the retention of Television New Zealand for the benefit of New Zealanders. We oppose the National Party’s secret agenda of flogging off Television New Zealand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not that secret. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well it is not very secret. Dr Coleman seems to be surprised though. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Any intelligent person knows about it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Dr Coleman is an intelligent person and I am sure that he will now grasp the fact that it is the National Party’s policy to flog off Television New Zealand along with Auckland International Airport and the few things that are still left in the ownership of New Zealanders if it becomes the Government. But I can assure the House that New Zealand First will do everything possible to prevent that from happening in the next parliamentary session when it is also returned to Parliament. 
This is a simple bill. I just took the opportunity to respond to Dr Coleman’s comments. Thank you very much.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14664] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14644] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker the Hon Paul Swain for his generous comments about the way in which the Commerce Committee worked on the Limited Partnerships Bill. It is significant legislation as he mentioned because it brings arrangements in New Zealand into line with other international jurisdictions. It has the effect of making sure that venture capital flowing into New Zealand can be used here for the development of our economy with investors knowing that the regime that operates inside New Zealand is a safe one that there is good law and that for those who make investments there is reasonable protection from a failure of the system to look after the interests they have. 
Is it not a little bit interesting though that we have a bill here effectively made workable by the National Party but promoted by the Government to encourage foreign investment in New Zealand? Here in Parliament we are discussing it just a day after the current Government embarked on yet another nationalisation of a business inside New Zealand. I will say no more than that but there is simply a certain irony in that which I think should not escape the attention of those who understand these matters. 
I also think it is interesting that we are talking about encouraging this foreign investment. For example when we look at the forestry industry in New Zealand we see we could do with significant amounts of foreign investment because it has such a long life cycle. The end product takes 25 or 30 years to mature and therefore cash flows are pushed out for a long number of years. At the same time we have a Government in New Zealand making sure that such investment is very very unattractive because of its failure to ascertain the same opportunities for New Zealand foresters as the Australians managed to obtain for Australian foresters in negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol. 
I do not want to talk for a long time about a bill that is essentially well-supported in the House and that has gone through a very good process at the select committee. People have a view that Parliament is a very adversarial place and that we are just out there to knock each other over all the time. A lot of legislation goes through the House every year and I think everybody who was part of the select committee for this bill made a fair effort to get good information. We most certainly had very good advisors at various points and I can only commend the colleagues who were on the select committee with me for the work they did. I think we have managed to deliver up for the Minister of Commerce a much improved version of the bill that was originally sent to us. With that I tell the House that the National Party will be supporting the bill this afternoon and I will end my comments.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14638] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 It was my mistake. I seek leave to correct the Maori Party vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Perhaps we should take the whole vote again.
Mallard Trevor: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14638] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Could we please have repeated to us the votes because I think there was a misunderstanding as to the votes of the Maori Party. We understood that party to have voted in favour and its votes may not have been counted. I seek leave to have the vote taken again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We can seek leave to take the vote again if there has been a misunderstanding.
Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:645;Page:14633] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand there is still one slot left in the general debate and that United Future which was originally assigned that slot did not take up that opportunity. As there is a fellow member a member of a Government support party in the House I assume the House would have no difficulty in Mr Jones taking that call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dail Jones.
Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:645;Page:14629] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that you called my colleague to order during the course of his speech. I presume that was when he referred to the Hon Rick Barker simply as Rick. Is that correct? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is true. 
SIMON POWER 
: If that is the case I would appreciate that same consistent standard being applied when Labour members refer to the Leader of the Opposition on a first-name basis and with an adjective in front of that first name during the course of this debate. Once those two things are consistently applied I think you will find that order will be returned to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members were called to order when that occurred.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14619] 
12.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has she received on the Government’s recent announcement on vehicle noise? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the Motor Trade Association stating that it is fully behind the efforts of Minister Harry Duynhoven to push the objective noise-testing of vehicles that have modified exhaust systems. I have also seen a report from the Automobile Association supporting the 90-decibel limit being applied to newly imported vehicles but not to the existing vehicle fleet. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What additional reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s recent announcement on vehicle noise? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen reports from National Party member of Parliament Nicky Wagner stating that the 90-decibel limit should be applied to all cars. The Government considered this but found that between 50000 and 150000 ordinary Kiwi mums and dads would be seriously disadvantaged by having to pay up to $500 to fit a new exhaust system to their cars. These Kiwi mums and dads need to know what National wants to do to them. Perhaps the National has not figured out that the Government’s new measures will eventually reduce the noise level of the whole fleet within New Zealand without imposing punitive measures on ordinary Kiwi car owners. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many of the people who operate excessively noisy cars literally thumb their noses at the law and often accumulate thousands of dollars in fines; if so will she take any action to address the problem? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I need to assure the member that a lot of action is being taken. This measure is part of it but there is also very strong police enforcement. Anybody who has been out in Christchurch with boy racers—as his colleague Mr Mark has; Mr Mark and I were out at the same time in fact—will know that the police along with the bailiffs can remove cars from the road if their owners have not paid their fines. So I can assure the member that plenty is happening.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Arab Emirates—Minister of Foreign Trade 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Arab Emirates—Minister of Foreign Trade 
[Volume:645;Page:14601] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Her Excellency Sheikha Lubna al-Qasimi Minister of Foreign Trade of the United Arab Emirates is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.
Visitors — United Arab Emirates—Minister of Foreign Trade 
Visitors — United Arab Emirates—Minister of Foreign Trade 
[Volume:645;Page:14601] 
Wednesday 5 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Arab Emirates—Minister of Foreign Trade 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Her Excellency Sheikha Lubna al-Qasimi Minister of Foreign Trade of the United Arab Emirates is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15337] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 6 schedules 1 and 2 and clause 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Parts 1 to 6 schedules 1 and 2 and clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15337] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 182 and 183 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Parts 1 to 6 schedules 1 and 2 to omit clause 2 and to insert new clause 1A be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and new clause 1A agreed to.
Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15334] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I would like to correct some of the things that Mr Jones said. This House is full of people who are sick of gangs; I can accept that. They are sick of the drug problem youth gang fighting and much of the stuff that is going on in communities. But let us be real about defining what tagging is. Taggers are not gangs—members should understand that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Oh oh! 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I tell Mr Jones that he can groan all he likes— 
Mark Blumsky 
: So if they spray “Mongrel Mob” they don’t mean that? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No just a minute—the Mongrel Mob are not the taggers mate. Let us get this straight. There are strings of young people who form little groups—two from that community two from that one—and they have a club. They go to mark a church in Te Atatu a hall in another place and so on. 
Pita Paraone 
: They’re prospects. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I work with these people; they are not. They are totally a tagging group. 
Pita Paraone 
: Then control them. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: If the member is going to stay fixed like that about gangs then we are not going to solve the gang problem in itself—if he is going to tie everything into one. Someone wants to tie the drug problem to gangs and another wants to tie tagging to them. 
Gangs are gangs and we can disagree or agree in part on how to deal with them but the tagging thing is a youth thing a very young thing and we should accept that. That has been my work; working with these people catching them and putting up groups mostly in west and central Auckland to clean up the tagging and stuff like this. I know these taggers so when members say I am indulging gangs I point out that I know of them— 
Pita Paraone 
: Stop them then. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Well that is what we are doing. 
Ron Mark 
: You’re not; they’re tagging everything. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: You know this is the kind of talk that I would expect from Ron Mark. 
I simply say that if this society is going to keep creating communities that lack resources that lack industry that lack after-school activities for young people and that lack proper programmes of education for parents on after-school activities and on their responsibilities for their children then we can expect trouble from the youth. So I am saying now that it is time to stop the punishment mode that we seem to have been in all year and it is time to look at ways of investing in communities and building a strong spirit so that those communities take care of the problem themselves. Kia ora koutou.
Blumsky Mark: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15334] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. It is just a debate between these guys now to be perfectly honest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes it is. But we will allow Dr Pita Sharples to have a say.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15332] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: My colleague the member from Te Tai Tokerau is right. We would hope if one can imagine that that person came in front of all of Te Arawa on one day that certainly ka riro ma te whakama a ia e patu. 
[ 
embarrassment will be his downfall 
] 
But that is not always the case for everyone and that is acknowledged. 
I suppose what I am trying to get at is yes there is some payback and we tend to forget about many of the ones who are left after the damage has been done. I hope that maybe we would be thinking about as Dr Pita Sharples has raised in a number of speeches the notion of taking those people back to face those who have suffered at the hands of various crimes and in this case tagging. 
What would it be like if we developed the notion of taking those people who have been caught back to face those people who have unfortunately had property defaced and letting them work with those families and with those individuals on their property—to fix it up to tidy it up and to make it better? Would that not be a more positive way of dealing with this sort of issue? 
The second issue that I raised a little bit earlier was this notion that is caught up in Part 6 “Powers of police”. This is one of the real concerns that we in the Maori Party have. There are two clauses in this part namely clause 15 “Police or authorised person may require certain information” and clause 16 in respect of the notion of arrest. Clause 16 states: “Any police officer and all persons whom he or she calls to his or her assistance may arrest and take into custody without a warrant any person whom he or she has good cause to suspect of having committed an offence …”. 
With those words the definitions are so far and wide that one could take on many people walking down the street. I suspect that in the case of Manukau City many of those suspects may well be brown. That is the concern. It is not to say that they all are; it is simply to say that there is an element of history here that many of those people may be suspected and may well be brown. That is where the concern is. We need to look at that issue about the arrest and in particular about authorising police simply to pick up people grab their names and addresses and any other details. That for us is a real concern. 
The last thing I will say is that as I understand it the Attorney-General’s report did not give much attention to this bill at all and said that it needed to be written. If it is talking about reflecting as Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier one would hope that perhaps the Labour Government and indeed Mr Hawkins would reflect on the Attorney-General’s report. If it is good enough for him to say that it is not up there then maybe we need to reflect on it but nevertheless come up with some scenarios that may in fact address the problem across the board. Kia ora tatou.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15332] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 In response to some of the questions that Mr Cosgrove raised I want to make two points in respect of the costs back to those who might well have been the target of tagging. I reflected for a very short space of time and thought that in Maoridom we have a tikanga that goes back in history to the notion of utu and that is not utu in the sense of killing people off in any way shape or form; it is more the notion of payback. 
I was thinking about how I might address in my case in Rotorua the notion that somebody would come and tag my tupuna whare. I was thinking about those people whom Mr Cosgrove just referred to. I thought that a good idea would be to bring those people once caught—with their families—to face the people they had transgressed namely in this case all of Te Arawa to front up to my tribe and explain why they thought it was appropriate to deface and to tag my tupuna whare and to work it through in that way. In Te Ao Maori there is a saying that goes: “Waiho ma te whakama e patu.”: let embarrassment be the enforcer—the enforcer of crime. 
Pita Paraone 
: That used to be the case.
Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15326] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The taggers are generally not from gangs. They are usually two or three individuals who communicate with two or three other individuals in different parts of the town and they go throughout different communities and put their mark on the place like as someone described it a dog does. That is basically what they do. They are not the gangs that Shane Jones is talking about at all. Shane Jones is quite wrong and he knows that he is wrong to say that I indulge gangs and encourage them. I do not encourage gangs and I do not like their criminality. I have said a number of times in this Chamber that if gangs indulge in any criminal threatening or bullying behaviour they must be dealt with by the police or by any activity that is legal. 
But what I am doing is working to defuse and change the activities of many of the gangs and I will keep doing that. If the member wants to say that that is indulging the gangs then that is fine but at the end of the day anyone who breaks the law has to be dealt with properly. As for Shane Jones saying that I also support the drug activities of gangs I remind him that we brought the whole P issue to this Parliament and put it before a select committee—when I was not in Parliament—and 2 months later Parliament classified it as a class A drug. I have raised money and taken the P case up and down this country twice from Invercargill to Kaitaia pointing out to people and giving demonstrations of the evil of P. I have a team doing it now and I gave a demonstration myself at the Manukau Institute of Technology just a week ago. I am a fighter against drugs and I deplore the member associating me with supporting any kind of drug activity. 
I just want to get those things straight and to say that yes we have to stop the tagging and we already have powers to do that. I think that we have to move in and do it; that we have to strengthen the communities and not just leave it there and attack the kids. Kia ora.
Hobbs Marian: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15318] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker who will be Pita Paraone I just make this request again. When I sit in the Chair sometimes the conversations and the movement around the Chamber with people standing up just gets really loud. I think it shows a disrespect to each other. If members are going to have conversations can they keep them really really quiet.
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15317] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: —doing over bus stops as my colleague Ross Robertson mentions. He knows—having an electorate in Manukau City—and I know just how many elderly people feel when their letterboxes are left bent over and lying flat and their fences are graffitied. Some people may say that graffiti is art. I have heard it said in this Chamber. Well that is absolute rubbish. If they want to create art then they should do it on their canvas not on property owned by someone else. Perhaps one of the solutions may be that councils look at different ways of dealing with these young people. They should stop them feeling alienated and do something with them. 
In the end it is a problem for Manukau but I acknowledge that it is a problem in other parts of New Zealand. My colleagues from west Auckland also said that for those who travel on the rail corridors of Auckland the graffiti is an embarrassment and it is very hard to get rid of because of the danger of locomotives coming along the tracks. These young people do not think of danger. They paint on motorway overbridges they paint on high buildings and thereby put their own lives at risk. The tragedy of a young tagger losing his life in my electorate of Manurewa is something I think we should bear in the back of our minds.
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15317] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Can I first of all thank the colleagues who have spoken already in this debate. I acknowledge Judith Collins because she has been very active in trying to get something done about graffiti; Ross Robertson a fellow Manukau MP; Pita Paraone the New Zealand First member for his work; and all the Manukau MPs. I especially mention Su’a William Sio who is the newest member of this Parliament but he knows just what an impact graffiti has on the Manukau area. I take on board what Mr Blumsky said about our needing a bill to cover all New Zealand. I think that that is very very important. 
I will also mention Sir Barry Curtis because he became Mayor of Manukau in 1983 and I became the Mayor of Papakura. I can well recall going to a meeting at Manukau City in the 1980s where some graffiti artists were telling us why they graffitied. There were photographs of the inside of one of their homes where they had graffitied the refrigerator inside and outside. They had graffitied the television and they had graffitied the walls. So this is not a new problem; this is Manukau City being a catalyst to get legislation. 
Will legislation solve the problem? No not in itself it will not. But it shows that a community is frustrated by graffiti. Judith Collins mentioned the skateboard rink that gets attacked and people get very annoyed about these things. One thing that really does annoy me is when the Government introduced its legislation and the news media filmed around that area but it also filmed some of the kids who are the taggers bragging that they would carry on. Taggers make their tags they say so that they become famous. Of course then the news media put them on television which only encourages them. The news media have a greater responsibility than just to have the news encouraging these people. Setting them up in the eyes of their friends as heroes is something that television journalists need to think about a little more carefully. When we see these young people some of them would do other damage if they could. It is not just the graffiti. Sometimes it is bending letterboxes over. Sometimes it will be— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Bus stops.
Collins Judith: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15313] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Given the nature of this bill I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question so that we can have a wide-ranging debate over all provisions. I understand from the sponsor of the bill that that would be acceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought. Are there any objections? There are no objections; leave is granted.
Smith Lockwood: Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15307] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to make it clear that the National Party will be supporting the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill. The Hon Phil Goff has outlined every aspect of the consideration of this bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Hon Phil Goff spelt out in some detail the fine charitable work that the Melanesian Trust does around the Pacific particularly in the Solomon Islands Vanuatu and New Caledonia and I do not intend to repeat that. 
Mr Goff also covered the issue that the bill particularly addresses which is the problem that the Melanesian Trust has been operating for years—going right back two centuries ago; in fact going right back to 1862—on a tax-free basis for its income because under New Zealand tax law income for charitable purposes is not taxable if it is either not business income or used for charitable purposes here in New Zealand. The income for the Melanesian Trust is clearly not used for charitable purposes in New Zealand; it is used for charitable purposes in the Pacific. So that consideration for it to be exempt from tax is not valid so it has to be considered to be exempt from income tax on the basis that it did not receive business income. 
The problem was that in 2002 the Court of Appeal in a case called  
Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 
 actually made a decision on this issue. The particular problem which the Hon Phil Goff did not go into was that in that case Dick was actually receiving income from investment in four commercial properties. The Court of Appeal ruled that because the investment was in commercial properties it meant the income from it was business income. The dilemma for the Melanesian Trust was that some of its investment was in similar kinds of properties and therefore there was a risk that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue could in fact decide that the Melanesian Trust also had to pay income tax. Now as we look forward that would cost the trust $2 million a year out of its charitable activity and it would make a big hole in what it does for the schools and medical centres up there in Vanuatu the Solomon Islands and New Caledonia. 
But worse than that—and this is the final point I will make—the trust was at risk of being assessed for years going right the way back. If a decision were made that the trust was liable for income tax because its income was business income it was at risk of income assessments being backdated for some years. Of course that would be crippling. 
The National Opposition is absolutely satisfied that this legislation is a sensible move. We support it and we congratulate the Melanesian Trust on the fine work it does. There is no need to say any more on this issue; we have thoroughly examined it and it makes good sense.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15305] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive: 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.