edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goodhew Jo: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17822] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance and ask whether you can give me some guidance as to how much debate we have had on clauses 1 and 2—how many speeches we have already had—so that I can have some indication of the progress we have made in this debate previously. 
Grant Robertson 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I will handle this. There have been two calls because the previous speaker Kelvin Davis was finishing off a speech from the other day. Two calls have been taken.
English Bill: Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
English Bill: Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:671;Page:17786] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in the House today to a supplementary question to question No. 5 from the Hon Shane Jones. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I wish to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question to question No. 5 in the House today from the Hon Shane Jones. When asked why the waka-shaped pavilion had not been tendered out for contract I responded that it had been. However I have subsequently received information that the responsibility for contracting a company for the construction of the pavilion had been transferred to Ngati Whatua who exercised their own discretion in procuring a suitably qualified and experienced company to construct the pavilion. The reasons for transferring the responsibility to Ngati Whatua were time lines and budgetary constraints. 
As a further control the Government through Te Puni Kokiri has engaged Beca an independent construction company to provide separate advice and quality assurance on the project through regular reports to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Beca is currently engaged to provide quality assurance on the Cloud project and the fan zone on Queens Wharf. 
The answer I gave—that the construction of the pavilion had been tendered out for contract—was not correct.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:671;Page:17767] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I say to members that during the general debate to have a member to read a speech word for word is somewhat troubling. I do not want to prevent members from doing it but this is the general debate and the contribution was not that technical. I am sure that a very experienced member like Mr Locke does not really need to read it word for word.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17789] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:671;Page:17786] 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in the House today to a supplementary question to question No. 5 from the Hon Shane Jones. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I wish to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question to question No. 5 in the House today from the Hon Shane Jones. When asked why the waka-shaped pavilion had not been tendered out for contract I responded that it had been. However I have subsequently received information that the responsibility for contracting a company for the construction of the pavilion had been transferred to Ngati Whatua who exercised their own discretion in procuring a suitably qualified and experienced company to construct the pavilion. The reasons for transferring the responsibility to Ngati Whatua were time lines and budgetary constraints. 
As a further control the Government through Te Puni Kokiri has engaged Beca an independent construction company to provide separate advice and quality assurance on the project through regular reports to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Beca is currently engaged to provide quality assurance on the Cloud project and the fan zone on Queens Wharf. 
The answer I gave—that the construction of the pavilion had been tendered out for contract—was not correct.
Voting — Correction—Legal Services Bill 
Voting — Correction—Legal Services Bill 
[Volume:671;Page:17742] 
Voting 
Correction—Legal Services Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The results of the vote on the question on the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 to schedule 1 of the Legal Services Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 48 Noes 64. The correct result is Ayes 49 Noes 64. The record will be corrected.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17756] 
10. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement on the Pike River royal commission of inquiry that “we are taking this inquiry absolutely seriously we are determined to get answers for those families and we will leave no stone unturned”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will he be satisfied that he has fulfilled his promise that “we will leave no stone unturned” if the company that planned built and operated the mine is unable to fully participate in the royal commission of inquiry; if not what action will he take to ensure the company can participate? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a couple of points. Firstly the company does not need lawyers to fully participate in the royal commission of inquiry—it is not an adversarial court nor is anyone actually on trial. In relation to the company and the formal request it made yesterday to fund legal representation the Government is unlikely to respond positively towards that request because it is our view that the company already has resources to pay for its own legal representation. On the best information we have it has about $5 million left in the bank. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously consider that the statement by the receivers and the company that they do not have the ability to fund and finance the proper information to be delivered is a reasonable excuse; and why does he not do something about it now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is not an excuse; it is a statement of fact that a lawyer is not required to participate in the royal commission of inquiry. It is also true in our view unless proven otherwise that the company has about $5 million in resources.
Resignations — Hon Darren Hughes Labour 
Resignations — Hon Darren Hughes Labour 
[Volume:671;Page:17741] 
Wednesday 6 April 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Hon Darren Hughes Labour 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of Tuesday 5 April 2011.
Chauvel Charles: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Chauvel Charles: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17741] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to thank the Minister for the statement he has made on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence. It is the first time that the question of the appropriateness of a national rather than a regional state of emergency has been addressed in a ministerial statement and for that I do acknowledge the fact that the Minister has considered the matter and communicated his thoughts or at least the thoughts of the Minister of Civil Defence to the House. The issues that he has raised about the appropriateness of a national versus a regional state of emergency will be considered by the Opposition and a response will be forthcoming in due course.
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17725] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:671;Page:17739] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made excellent progress tonight. I seek leave for the House to rise early returning tomorrow at 2 p.m. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17730] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in the House in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. It was interesting to listen to the last speaker Su’a William Sio who is a member from South Auckland. Under the previous Labour Government that area was bombarded for 6 months by aerial spraying to control the painted apple moth. Over 9 years of that Government 8 tonnes of raw meat products were imported each year by people—on their person—mainly into the Mangere Airport in South Auckland where that member comes from and mainly from Pacific Island nations. That member can stand in the House and say National is doing a poor job in biosecurity but I would suggest that that is quite an interesting concept. 
The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 September 2010 and submissions closed on 7 October. We listened to three of the submitters who asked to be heard; all of the submitters who asked to be heard were heard. The key points that they raised with us and that the committee took into consideration in its deliberations were described by a couple of airports Palmerston North Airport and Hamilton International Airport as having the potential to be a little short-sighted around cost recovery in their re-emerging if they could find suitable international carriers to come into their airports. The committee considered that issue seriously because it was worthy of consideration and chose to ensure that the biosecurity of New Zealand was upheld by ensuring that costs were able to be recovered by the three lead agencies involved in carrying out border control. The committee also looked seriously at the recommendations put forward by the ministry officials and it decided to accept in most cases those recommendations. I will not go over them all because the Minister for Biosecurity the Hon David Carter clearly outlined them in his speech so that is there for the record if anyone wishes to go back and look at it. 
The objective of this bill is to reduce the Government’s exposure to unexpected costs and associated costs to do with airport clearance or immigration clearance if you like through our airports and goods and services through our main ports. The agencies that are most involved are aviation MAF Biosecurity New Zealand and our Customs Service. On balance the select committee has come down in a position that clearly has widespread support in the House. I look forward to the passage of the bill and I look forward to these actions being put in place. Thank you.
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17724] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17722] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17721] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17716] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17719] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Hon Nanaia Mahuta raises an interesting question as to the issues—[ 
Interruption 
] No it was good. It was a good question as to why the obligations that the Securities Commission can inquire into do not relate to trustees but to licensees. There are a couple of reasons. The first is that licensees will have broader considerations to take into account—that is statutory obligations that they may otherwise have that do not relate to the direct relationship between the trustees and beneficiaries or investors which may occur as part of the mutual relationship that develops between those two parties. So what happens is that the “licensee” obligation as opposed to the “trustee” obligation imposes a wider obligation on those people who act in the capacity of statutory trustees and also draws in the statutory obligations that they might have under other pieces of legislation that the Financial Markets Authority may or may not have interest in as opposed to just the relationship between the trustee and the investor. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the Minister’s amendments— 
Clare Curran 
: Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member calling? Members must call and I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 25/5. Sometimes it is a bit hard to hear and it is important that members call. 
Clare Curran 
: My apologies Mr Chair but I did call. Perhaps I need to use more projection. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member.
Power Simon: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17726] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 There is the voice of experience; the member Rick Barker understands how the Committee stage is supposed to work—clause by clause and getting into the detail of some of these things. I can reassure the member in respect of his second point. Of course I could not help myself as the member would know; when questions like that one are put I have to rise to my feet and delay this bill even more than I would like to. But a challenge is a challenge right? If the member had dropped his eyes to subclause (4) of clause 48 he would have seen that the nature of protected disclosure is defined in that clause. 
To flick back to clause 45 I say that the member raises an interesting point. As I understand it amendments to the Interpretation Act take into account the heading of a clause or section whereas previously that was not the case; it was only the substantive matter in the clause that the courts paid any attention to. Having said that I point out that clause 45 makes it very clear that if the grounds are met—that is if the reasonable belief is held—then the trustee or supervisor must as soon as practicable make the report. So the matters contained in the heading to clause 45 are in fact a brief summary of what is included in the substantive part of clause 45. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17679] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In response to the Hon David Parker’s comments on the Legal Services Bill perhaps I could make three or four quick remarks. The first is that the need to expedite these matters before the courts and to ensure that that process does not divorce itself from quality representation and quality arguments is critical to a range of things the Government is undertaking across the justice area at present. I can tell him that if he holds his breath for long enough help is on the way in the jurisdiction. We are dealing with the criminal area; the family area is next on my radar. We have been doing some things on the simplification of the court processes themselves. Of course it was his Government that had the foresight to legislate for the removal of depositions and this Government that instigated it. We are making progress. 
To the matters contained in Part 3 of the Legal Services Bill and in particular on community law centres I share the member’s view that it is the role of community law centres to provide legal services to clients who cannot afford to seek that advice by way of payment directly from a law firm. Of course it might not be the case in the member’s part of the world but many of these community law centres actually employ full-time lawyers. So the ability to simply hive people off to another firm is not always the case with some of these bigger community law centres around the country. 
One of the things we are working hard towards is consistency of advice across those community law centres sound governance arrangements across those community law centres and relevance to a particular community to make sure that the skill set is correct. Those three categories of compliance have had diverse contributors to them—if I can put it that way—over the course of the last while. But I can assure members of the Committee that this Government and I are committed to the continuation of community law centres and the quality service they provide. 
I have a couple of quick responses to some of the comments raised by Charles Chauvel. Firstly on the statutory obligation to consult I briefly advise the member that the consultation provisions in the Legal Services Act 2000 frankly were used to stall and slow down legal aid reform during previous times. It made the development of the public defenders’ service much slower and far more expensive than it should have been. My experience has been that having a codification of statutory consultation actually invites that type of process to occur where differing benefits accrue. So on that basis I have no doubt that consultation will occur where appropriate. In respect of legal research and education as I am sure the member knows the secretary may undertake or fund law-related research and education rather than must. Law-related research and education is a traditional yet very small part of this particular vote and of the legal aid scheme.
Power Simon: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17686] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am not going to let an opportunity go by because although Lianne Dalziel is dead right—this is not the crux of the matter—the truth is that Part 1 of the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill establishes the purpose of Parts 1 to 4 which includes establishing the Financial Markets Authority as an independent Crown entity. It is easy to say—just like that—but this is a significant shift. The purpose contained in Part 1 which talks about some of these issues more broadly: the main objectives and functions— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Part 2 that is. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No no I know what I am doing. I would like to suggest that although we are talking about the purpose at this stage we are actually seeing a fundamental shift in the regulatory landscape for the oversight of the financial markets in New Zealand. The announcement about this was originally made at the Institute of Finance Professionals New Zealand dinner in April last year and thanks to members of the Commerce Committee and others we have seen some speedy progress on this legislation. 
Before we head into the detail of the bill I acknowledge the work that has been done by the chair of the Commerce Committee Lianne Dalziel and some of the changes that have been made as part of this process to get to where we are today. I will leave it there; I did not want to take any opportunity other than to say we are entering into quite a significant step here. I know that Lianne Dalziel will be anxious to make contributions to other parts but I look forward to the speedy progress of this legislation and its sister—or brother—piece of legislation the securities trustees legislation through the Committee stage over the next hour or so. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 222 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17685] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17684] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17684] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17684] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 1; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 48 Noes 64. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17684] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Power Simon: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17683] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am happy to update the Committee. Two further Public Defence Services have opened in Auckland on the North Shore and in Papakura. Since that time 3 weeks ago I opened the Wellington Public Defence Service. In fact I am a bit upset that the member did not see my press release and speech from that particular opening given that Kris Faafoi attended the opening of the Wellington Public Defence Service on behalf of the Labour Party. I can assure members opposite that progress is rolling out in a way and at a pace that I am sure they only wish they could have done when they were in Government and when they first promoted the Public Defence Service were it not for the strange arrangements that were in place regarding consultation and slow down at the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind members that if a party wants a party vote it needs to ask for one. Just because one votes against it does not mean to say that there will be a party vote.
Vote: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17703] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17685] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and comment on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill. Part 1 of course deals with the preliminary provisions. In some ways it is a bit unfortunate that we start the debate in the Committee stage on such an important piece of legislation by looking at the preliminary provisions in respect of the interpretation sections rather than looking at some of the more meaty elements of the legislation which is where we will debate the substance. Of course the debate on Part 2 will probably be focused on the role of the Financial Markets Authority and I will speak to that in some more detail. 
I know that the Committee stage is an opportunity to look at the more technical elements of the legislation and to explain a little bit about why the Commerce Committee undertook the particular approaches that it undertook. I will comment particularly on the way that we have restructured the language regarding financial markets participants. I think we have done quite a good job and I acknowledge the officials for all their good work. I know that we were working under the pressure of time and I think we nailed what we were trying to achieve in this particular provision of this part. I congratulate those who submitted to us on these issues and also the officials who put in such a fine effort. I do not want to say much more on Part 1 because it really is not the substance of the debate and I would rather leave the substance to the more substantive parts of the bill.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Christchurch—Creation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Christchurch—Creation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority 
[Volume:671;Page:17676] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. This may well be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but the member has provided no authenticating material. That in itself is sufficient ground to decline an application. I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 170/5. The member though refers in his letter to anticipated legislation. I understand legislation is to be introduced in coming weeks. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the establishment of the authority. I indicate it is not the lack of authentication that has caused me to fail to support the member’s letter today. I believe there is to be a debate on this matter and in these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17680] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17675] 
12. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Recently I announced five projects that will see $3.4 million be used from the fund for the 2010-11 year. Those projects will help to provide 21 new properties in South Auckland Tauranga Nelson and Tamaki for New Zealanders on low to moderate incomes or with special housing needs. Another project will benefit Maori directly with 5 new affordable rental properties being built on the Chatham Islands through Maori Demonstration Partnerships. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The fund encourages partnerships with community housing organisations. It is about making the taxpayer dollar go further and building roofs for families that are struggling. It is part of the Government’s commitment to increase the quantum of social housing. I am currently looking at ways that we can change the Housing Innovation Fund to make it even more attractive to third sector participants. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the reason he has done nothing substantial in 2½ years to address the ever-worsening housing shortage in New Zealand—apart from taking credit for good Labour Government initiatives such as the Housing Innovation Fund—that like the Prime Minister he does not believe that New Zealand is actually facing a housing shortage? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is fair to say the general public know we have streamlined the Resource Management Act to make resource consenting easier and streamlined the Building Act to make building consenting easier. We have made it very very clear that the most important thing to New Zealanders when it comes to housing affordability is actually mortgage interest rates which have remained flat to low under this Government. They have not soared to 9 10 or 11 percent which is what they were under the Labour Government.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17669] 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the latest trends in the level of crime in New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that total recorded crime per head of population dropped by 6.7 percent in 2010. This result is a tribute to the dedication and tenacity of our law enforcement officers. The police have put more officers on patrol on the front line and are working closely with communities and other agencies to prevent crime happening in the first place. The Department of Corrections is also playing an important role by keeping the most dangerous people in our society securely locked away. At the same time it is focusing its efforts on rehabilitation in order to help offenders to stay out of trouble when they are released. I commend our law enforcement officers for these results and for the important work that they are doing to keep our communities safe. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What other factors have influenced the drop in recorded crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: One of the key factors is that this Government is determined to reduce the number of people who become the victims of crime. We have put extra police officers on the front line passed new legislation to strengthen their ability to fight crime and given them new tools such as Tasers and digital radios. We have also increased our focus on reducing the number of people who reoffend. There are now more prisoners than ever before undertaking drug treatment work training and education. However these results do not signal that we will be relaxing our efforts to fight crime. Although the drop is consistent with a long-term trend we will continue to back our law enforcement agencies to keep up their great work.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17665] 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What progress has the Government made on its infrastructure programme? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister for Infrastructure) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: The Government is directly spending billions of dollars each year on improving infrastructure and with it supporting thousands of jobs across the country. The latest example is the awarding last week of the $150 million contract for construction of the Ngaruawahia section of the Waikato Expressway. Engineering works are expected to begin on site in September—about 3 years earlier than expected when a previous Government was involved. Construction of the Ngaruawahia section will create up to 300 local jobs and when completed the Te Rapa and Ngaruawahia sections together will provide a 20-kilometre long new northern entrance for the city of Hamilton. 
David Bennett 
: How is the Waikato Expressway helping the regional economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Construction is already underway on the 7.5 kilometre Te Rapa link where 200 people currently are directly employed. In addition there have already been over 1100 contractors working on the project with tasks ranging from design and planning to construction and engineering. Once completed the long-term economic benefits of the Waikato Expressway will be hugely important. It will bring the major cities of Auckland and Hamilton much closer together. The Government is committed to lifting productivity creating jobs and helping to get our goods to market more quickly. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How does this fit into the Government’s wider improvements for infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Work to unclog the arteries of our State highway network is just one aspect of the Government’s infrastructure investment. We are investing $7.5 billion in public amenities such as schools State houses hospitals prisons and ultra-fast broadband over 5 years. In addition we are supporting KiwiRail through the $4.6 billion KiwiRail Turnaround Plan and we have allocated $1.6 billion to metro rail improvements in Auckland and around $700 million to metro rail improvements in Wellington. Another important transport infrastructure investment was launched as late as yesterday with the HOP card an integrated ticket launched with the Associate Minister for Infrastructure’s help by Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Integrated ticketing is great for consumers and will enable users to have faster and more convenient access to all public transport services.
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17717] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17660] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I just want to say that it is wonderful when people have 40/40 vision 5 weeks later. The point is that the state of emergency will be continued until we have a replacement. The second thing is that we did endeavour to contact the person the member complained about but we could not find them and had to make the decisions that we did. Of course we are always concerned first and foremost about the safety of people. Finally I just make the point again that the national state of emergency applies specifically to Christchurch City.
Chauvel Charles: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Chauvel Charles: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17659] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge the statement from the Minister of Civil Defence. I also though record some disappointment given that on the last occasion when the Minister advised the House of the renewal of the state of emergency it was pointed out to the Government that the very wide powers under a national state of emergency needed to be questioned as far as their appropriateness for dealing with a regional emergency is concerned. The Minister was asked to address the House on the next occasion when he spoke to the House on this matter after consideration about whether a regional state of emergency would do. I note in this regard that the Cabinet papers that have been released concerning the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority contemplate effectively putting in place such a state to be administered by the new entity to be created by that legislation. Although the Opposition continues to support the need for extraordinary powers to exist in Canterbury I do register my disappointment that the Minister has not addressed the point of whether a national state of emergency remains necessary in the circumstances.
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17659] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I wish to make a statement under Standing Order 347 in relation to the state of national emergency in Christchurch City. On Thursday 31 March I further extended the duration of the state of national emergency in Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. That was the sixth extension of the state of national emergency that has applied specifically to Christchurch City since it was first declared on 23 February. I will make a further extension tomorrow Wednesday 6 April. The extensions are necessary to enable the national controller to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17672] 
10. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does she agree that the joint scheme initiated by the Green Party and the Government Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart is the best initiative in the  
Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy 
 because it is providing hundreds of thousands of New Zealand households with warm dry energy-efficient homes and creating thousands of clean green jobs? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. The Government agrees that Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme has been effective in improving insulation and heating in thousands of New Zealand homes. To date over 91500 homes have been retrofitted. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the final version of the  
New Zealand Energy Strategy 
 change from the version mistakenly released last week and have a greater focus on smart green energy solutions like the Warm Up New Zealand scheme instead of prioritising the development of fossil fuels? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Government is yet to finalise its energy strategy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is she aware that if New Zealand goes ahead and digs up its lignite coal as proposed in the draft strategy it will result in the release of greenhouse emissions equivalent to 150 times our current annual emissions; and how is that compatible with the “50 by 50” target for reducing emissions? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Government has not yet finalised its energy strategy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does she agree that when the Government does finalise its energy strategy it would be best if the Government were to embrace a clean green energy strategy rather than that proposed in the draft strategy which is to embrace fossil fuels? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Government has not yet finalised its energy strategy and those issues are being taken into account.
Foss Craig: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
Foss Craig: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17738] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 A previous Labour speaker said Labour was going backwards under this National Government. He was right; Labour is definitely going backwards under this National Government. Incidentally its first speaker up in this debate had a lot to say about the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill but I cannot see his name mentioned as having been one of the members who sat on the Primary Production Committee as we heard submissions on the bill. Just for the record I say yes we did hear submissions. Every submitter who wanted to be heard was heard. An earlier speaker said there were only eight submitters but he failed to mention the fact that the first submitter was the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand and the second was the New Zealand Airports Association. So in fact all airlines and all airports that operate in New Zealand were represented and gave submissions on this particular bill and that was on top of the ongoing consultations that had gone on for quite some time. Maybe Labour cannot count correctly or something which is perhaps why the Labour Opposition is going backwards under this National Government. 
This bill gives clarity to airports and fairness and certainty to those who may want to re-enter or start up as international airports. On that note I note the concerns I raised about Hawke’s Bay Airport—or Napier airport as some may call it—which is currently undergoing an extension thanks to the hard work of the local hard-working MPs Mr Tremain and another humble MP from Tukituki. One day that airport may become international but at the very least right now it will soon become jet capable. Interestingly the debate moved on to the scenario that if New Zealand and Australia perhaps become one domestic air market then discussions about international flights potentially going into or out of Hawke’s Bay Airport would become irrelevant because it would be a domestic airport and other legislation and regulation would deal with such matters. But I congratulate Mr Tremain and his hard-working colleague on their successes so far in the Hawke’s Bay. The northern extension of the airport has now been built and the southern extension should also be open some time in June. 
On that note I say it will be very interesting to see the first carton of Hawke’s Bay apples go fresh on a flight from Wellington or Auckland to Australia. All of that is again due to the hard work of many people in Hawke’s Bay as well as of the two somewhat humble MPs there who have been working on the issue of access to the Australian market for apples for quite some time. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Barker Rick: Business of the House 
Barker Rick: Business of the House 
[Volume:671;Page:17675] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for H V Ross Robertson to be appointed as an Assistant Speaker for today Tuesday 5 April Wednesday 6 April and Thursday 7 April given my appointment as the senior Labour whip and Eric Roy’s unavoidable absence from the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I congratulate Mr Robertson.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:671;Page:17739] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made excellent progress tonight. I seek leave for the House to rise early returning tomorrow at 2 p.m. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Israel—Speaker Knesset 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Israel—Speaker Knesset 
[Volume:671;Page:17659] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Reuven Rivlin Speaker of the Knesset of Israel is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Reuven Rivlin accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would also welcome his delegation which is in the Speaker’s gallery. I am sure members would wish that they too be welcomed.
Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Christchurch—Creation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority 
Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Christchurch—Creation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority 
[Volume:671;Page:17676] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Earthquake Christchurch—Creation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. This may well be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but the member has provided no authenticating material. That in itself is sufficient ground to decline an application. I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 170/5. The member though refers in his letter to anticipated legislation. I understand legislation is to be introduced in coming weeks. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the establishment of the authority. I indicate it is not the lack of authentication that has caused me to fail to support the member’s letter today. I believe there is to be a debate on this matter and in these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:671;Page:17675] 
Business of the House 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for H V Ross Robertson to be appointed as an Assistant Speaker for today Tuesday 5 April Wednesday 6 April and Thursday 7 April given my appointment as the senior Labour whip and Eric Roy’s unavoidable absence from the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I congratulate Mr Robertson.