edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5371] 
9.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is the Government proposing to the partial defence of provocation? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Today the Government has introduced the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill which will abolish the partial defence of provocation provided for in section 169 of the Crimes Act. There are fundamental problems with the application of the partial defence of provocation. Historically the reason for this provision was to avoid the mandatory murder penalty which was originally capital punishment. As I have stated previously provocation enables defendants to besmirch the character of victims and it effectively rewards a loss of self-control. 
Chester Borrows 
: What impact will the proposed repeal of the partial defence of provocation have on those who are battered and those with mental impairments? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am advised by the Law Commission that the defence of provocation is rarely relied upon by the victims of battering; in fact it is more likely to be used by the perpetrators of battering. In appropriate cases though self-defence would be available to the victims of battering. I am further advised that the mentally impaired are generally precluded from relying upon the partial defence of provocation as provocation requires that the defendant has the power of self-control of an ordinary person.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5370] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At 3 o’clock today a rally is being held at the front steps of Parliament to protest against cuts to community education— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I do not see how this can possibly be a matter to do with the order of the House. If the member can assure me that it is to do with the order of this House then I— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I seek leave for question No. 10 to be held over until tomorrow to enable the Minister of Education to attend that rally because she gave her responsibilities on the Order Paper as an excuse for her not attending. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. Leave is sought for the question to be held over until tomorrow. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Hon Member 
: Chicken! Chicken! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] When I am on my feet interjecting will stop. There will not be that kind of interjection across the House and the member knows that he must not do that.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5369] 
7.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What recent announcements have been made about the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The Government announced on Sunday that it would be jump-starting the first stage of the Youth Guarantee. Next year we will fund 2000 fee-free places for 16 and 17-year-olds at polytechs private training establishments and wananga. The Government has always believed that some students will be more motivated to succeed in non-school settings and we are very proud of the fact that we are able to jump-start the Youth Guarantee so that by the start of next year 2000 students will be able to take advantage of it. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will the Government decide which providers and courses will be part of the initial roll-out of the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The providers involved next year will be those in areas with high youth unemployment rates that have a demonstrated track record of delivering programmes at levels 1 to 3 to young people. The courses offered will be vocationally focused courses at levels 1 to 3 with literacy and numeracy embedded in the course content. Examples include certificates in mechanical maintenance computing agriculture and forestry skills—the list goes on and on. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What advice does the Minister have for the 6000 students who are not covered by the extra places in polytechs provided by the Youth Guarantee scheme and how can those 6000 students be expected to get into training or education when the Minister refuses to make room for them to learn? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would say to the member that those students do not exist so it is very hard to give them advice. Those students are hypothetical; they are based on predictions that various institutions have made. Each institution that makes those predictions uses a different basis. In the past those predictions have not tended to be very reliable. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister received on the reaction to the jump-starting of the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received a report that states that the institutes of technology and the polytechs are right behind the Youth Guarantee. I have also received reports that private training establishments and wananga are busy putting together applications to be part of the 2010 jump-start. I am really heartened by the response from the wider education sector. It seems that everyone except the Labour Party thinks the scheme is a good idea. I look forward to all those training organisations providing 2000 high-quality tertiary education opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds next year.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5440] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I speak to the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill which is a rather long and complex bill. I also acknowledge the work that our chairperson Craig Foss did in chairing this bill through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He did a great job and the parties came together well in putting together the various amendments to the original bill. A very good job was done of working through some very complex issues along the way. 
I also acknowledge our friends from the Inland Revenue Department our independent advisers and tax specialists and the various people who came together to provide advice on the bill. I think they did a great job and they did so under very trying circumstances and often under very strict time restrictions between the weeks that we met. So I salute those people and thank them for their advice. 
In summary I stand to support this bill because it will provide for the improvement of the tax legislation in this country. Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker.
Bennett David: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5438] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. Most of the points of this bill have been canvassed in depth by other speakers. There were some big issues that we had to face in regard to the active versus passive business tests and the definitions of associated persons and those issues took a lot of time in the meetings of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
I thank those officials who gave very detailed advice and worked through the examples with us. I also thank members of the committee from both sides who worked constructively to get a solution in regard to many of those issues. The bill has been a long time coming and taxation in this area is a work in progress. It needed to happen and this is another point in continuing the process that we are going through at the moment in regard to taxation reform.
Roy Eric: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5409] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure whether we have established the process for this but I am expected to accept the call. I think it is a good call to inform the Speaker before he arrives in the Chamber. Please proceed.
Roy Eric: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5409] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before the dinner break the Hon Tariana Turia was speaking and has about 9 minutes and 40 seconds remaining. 
Rahui Katene 
: Could I speak on her behalf?
Turia Tariana: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Turia Tariana: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5409] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Two years ago in the magazine  
LawTalk 
 the context of the Search and Surveillance Bill was laid out fairly and squarely. When the Law Commission president Geoffrey Palmer has described the present laws providing for powers of search and surveillance as a mess it is a pretty good indication that something needs to be done. And just how big a mess the laws were in was evident in the range of deficiencies outlined by Mr Palmer. Existing statutory powers are sometimes too restrictive. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Turia Tariana: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
Turia Tariana: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5388] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. The Limitation Bill is part of a recurring theme around updating legislation in such a way as to ensure it is clearer more comprehensible and more accessible. The legislation also wears the influence of the Law Commission. The Law Commission in its 2007 report  
Limitation Defences in Civil Claims  
recommended many of the changes that are set out in this bill. 
The Maori Party has a special interest in one clause clause 26 which we would turn to for any explanation of how the limitation defence rules apply for Maori customary land. Clause 26 gathers together all of the rules concerning Maori customary land into one provision. Although we are happy for the legislation to be updated we have some concerns around clause 26. The problem is not about the clustering of provisions into one place; it is more fundamental than that. It is about the purpose of having such a clause included at all. We do not believe that there should be any limitation periods applied to Maori customary land claims. All limitation periods pertaining to Maori customary land need to be removed. They should not be there and this is a chance to make that change now. In practice the limitation provisions are yet another mechanism by which Maori customary land can become Crown land and we have had a lot of experience of that. 
Clause 26 of this bill specifies that nothing in the Act should limit or affect section 344 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In effect this means that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act takes precedence and this should not change. 
Although the bill has sought to clarify provisions of when the time period starts to run it is not always simple because of the complexity of Maori land law and management. It is not always clear what is and what is not customary land. There have been many instances where Crown assumptions of statutory extinguishment do not hold up under investigation; the foreshore and seabed legislation is perhaps the most well-known example. These are issues for the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate or for further dialogue with hapu and iwi without limitation. Because of this it becomes very problematic to put a time limit on the claims. It gives the Crown the advantage which in the interests of justice it should not have. 
The Maori Party considers that the general philosophy needs to be different. The philosophy might be that when it comes to matters of Maori customary land the conditions for the ongoing Crown-Maori Treaty relationship are prioritised not subject to a limitation date. It is through that Treaty relationship that matters can be continuously worked at so there is time to discuss and work through new matters as they come to attention. This is a key issue for discussion at the select committee and the Maori Party looks forward to participating further in that debate. In order to enable the debate to proceed we will be supporting this bill at its first reading.
Graham Kennedy: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5388] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the Limitation Bill being referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I believe Green Party members share the view expressed just recently by the Attorney-General that this is a great day for black-letter law. The existing Limitation Act 1950 is in an advanced state of putrefaction and as he put it the surgery now required is beyond the reach of the judiciary so it falls to the legislature to clear up the matter—and that indeed is overdue. 
The bill sets up a new regime for time limitations for civil claims in the courts. The current law in the Limitation Act has been widely and trenchantly criticised by the Law Commission and by the courts as being unfair outdated and uncertain. In addition some of the important terms were left undefined. The bill therefore seeks to tidy up the civil limitation laws to make them clearer more equitable and more accessible. We see certainly six key measures that are highly desirable: first retaining the current 6-year limitation period for most claims; second providing for exceptions or modifications to the general limitation period in cases of minority incapacity acknowledgment or part-payment and fraud; third providing for a 3-year late knowledge period replacing the phrase “reasonable discoverability” which is somewhat dense; fourth the provision of a longstop final limitation period of 15 years in most instances; fifth the clarification and simplification of the current laws and rules for land claims; and sixth giving the court or tribunal discretion to order that monetary relief may be granted in respect of a claim of sexual abuse of a minor or to enforce arbitral awards or ancillary awards even though a general limitation defence has been or could be established against the claim. The bill in general is based on the Law Commission recommendations and the key proposals seem to us eminently reasonable. As such we support its referral to the select committee. 
We do have one area of concern and that pertains to clause 26 concerning Maori customary land claims. We recall the quite tortuous and somewhat opaque legislative history commencing with the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Section 155 of that Act prohibited the enforcement of customary law interests against the Crown. It was repealed 40 years later in 1993. Further legislation which was repealed made it clear that the repeal of that section did not apply to the Crown. So we are left in a somewhat uncertain legislative situation which can pose difficulties for the way the Waitangi Tribunal conducts its investigations particularly in respect of the date on which a claim may be based and in respect of the question of the onus of proof. I do not think we are about to resolve those rather arcane issues here in the first reading but I do think it requires considerable scrutiny in the committee and it will be our intention to explore that pertaining to customary Maori land rights. With that reservation signalled we have considerable pleasure in supporting this bill. Thank you.
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5369] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I made an error about the 90-day rule. The rule does not apply to Job Ops or Community Max. It is a 6-month contract. As such the 90-day probation period does not apply.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5368] 
5.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent announcements have been made on creating job opportunities for our young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have announced we are providing a subsidy to employers of $5000 for every young person they can employ into an entry level position. We are paying $3000 up front and $2000 after 6 months. This Government now needs employers to step up and get on board. We know there are employers out there who need a bit of confidence to take on another person and this measure will help them to do so. I would urge them to give Work and Income a ring. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What interest has there been in the programme so far? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have already had three inquiries from community groups about the Community Max programme but 21 job opportunities have been registered with Work and Income and I am delighted that after just 24 hours two young people have already been placed into jobs. One is a factory worker the other is a cafe assistant and they actually started work today. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Has the Minister received reports showing that a child’s level of education is determined by his or her mother’s; if so will she consider reinstating the training incentive allowance for level 4 courses and above so that both sole mothers and their children can have a better chance of educational achievement resulting in better employment opportunities in the future for both youth and their mothers; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes we certainly do have a focus on teen parents. I know that Minister Tolley has been doing a lot of work around the education of teen parents and how that works. This Government is very focused on them and on how this might affect their children because at the end of the day happy educated parents mean happy educated children. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What reports has she seen that support the introduction of the Government’s youth opportunities package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen a number of encouraging reports. Michael Barnett from the Auckland chamber of commerce called it a supportive positive initiative that gives young people another option for becoming contributing members of society. Graeme Dingle has said: “The government’s intention here is great” and that it will help young people stay off the unemployment benefit develop work skills grow confidence and connect with their community. Mayor Dale Williams said it “should not only achieve a decrease in youth unemployment but also an increase in the skills of our young people.”
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5366] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table information provided by the Ministry of Economic Development on the cost impact of a target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2020. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5365] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 My apologies to the House. I should have sought leave at the end of Question No. 2 but I would now like to seek leave to table four separate letters. The first is a letter from Mount Roskill Primary School to the Prime Minister talking about the strain that funding cuts are placing on parents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second letter is from Mount Roskill Grammar School to parents and caregivers indicating that the school’s therapy service will need to be significantly reduced because of the cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The third letter is from Mount Roskill Intermediate School to the Hon Anne Tolley saying that the rights of the children who will be affected by the cuts will be compromised by that decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The last letter is from the Carlson School for Cerebral Palsy. It is an open letter to the families of the school. It says the school will lose half of its occupational therapy and physiotherapy staff if the funding cut goes ahead. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4278] 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on 10 June 2009 to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that “taxpayers are supporting the banks and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy even if it affects their profits a bit.” and also his statement on 14 May 2009 to the  
Press  
that “it [$4.5 billion] is a big profit and we would expect that in the next financial year they will be less profitable.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes; they sound to me like quite insightful and forceful comments. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister therefore agree with a statement made on the same day as the first quote by the Prime Minister John Key on  
One News 
 that “our big aim is that if the Reserve Bank governor does cut rates tomorrow … it flows through to what consumers are paying because in the last cut Alan Bollard made it ended up with the banks and not consumers.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As is usually the case the Prime Minister’s comments are much more insightful and forceful than mine and I think express the political issues very directly and effectively. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that Budget 2009 will help New Zealanders through the recession and set this country on the road to recovery? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do stand by those statements but I am concerned that those would be at risk if the Labour Party’s policies to borrow billions of dollars for the Superannuation Fund and to borrow billions more for the Waterview Connection were put in place. That would certainly push interest rates up further.
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4335] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 As chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that the previous Labour Government set up during its previous term and we have carried it through making a number of amendments to make it a bit more practical. It is a starting point. I think that is what everyone has to understand when we look at drug-driving and the enforcement of any regulation around it. This area is not as developed as drink-driving for example. We do not have the technology testing or the years of experience in how to build up a testing regime. We are starting with pretty basic sorts of tests with the straight line walking tests that we used to do for drink-driving now being applied for drug-driving. 
This bill is very much a starting point. Amendments that will be proposed or the debate around this bill need to be considered in the context that this is a starting point in dealing with this issue. Over time as technology develops and as we become more responsive to the needs of our police force in enforcing this legislation we can develop stronger penalties rules and methods of identifying those who are drug-drivers. 
I commend this bill to the House knowing that it is a starting point. It is the first step in that process and something that we look forward to passing through this House with the support of the major parties.
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4330] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:4354] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 The House has made very good progress this evening on a range of things. We are literally a few minutes away from the time at which the House is scheduled to rise; accordingly I seek leave for the House to rise early at this point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4352] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I do not intend to take too much of the House’s time tonight as it is close to 10 o’clock. But suffice to say that the Maori Party wishes to put on record our support for the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. 
As other speakers have explained the bill extends the interim meaning of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” from the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 until 31 December 2010. The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 is due to expire as of 1 July 2009. Therefore an extension of the interim meaning of the term is needed to allow time for a permanent meaning to be considered and enacted which will be done in the context of the Government’s review of electoral finance. 
People may or may not know that funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes include funding for the performance by a member of his or her role and functions as an MP; funding for performance by the parliamentary party of its role and functions as a parliamentary party; provision of travel accommodation and attendance services to MPs and their families; of communications services; and other bits and pieces here and there. 
Suffice to say we support this bill because it does fit with our previous practice. The Maori Party supported the Electoral Amendment Bill to repeal and review the Electoral Finance Act. The Maori Party voted to oppose the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act because we disagreed on principle with the notion that MPs and political parties are able to validate their illegal spending when no other citizens can do so. This House as we know has passed retrospective legislation to make legitimate what was illegal. The Maori Party also voted to oppose the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 because we disagreed on principle with illegal overspending during the election by MPs and political parties being made lawful via the passage of legislation. The Maori Party supports the tikanga of accountability transparency and integrity which give expression to things like rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga and in that regard we are happy to support this legislation. Kia ora ra.
Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4352] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 Labour supports the second reading of the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. It is a pleasure to join the Leader of the House in his explanation of it. He gave a statesmanlike address on the bill and I believe that he was a bit of a nation-builder in the speech he gave the House moments ago. 
I was reminded of when the exact same bill was considered by the previous Parliament. The member for Ilam Gerry Brownlee—and of course he is completely different from the person I have referred to the Leader of the House—regarded the bill as utterly disgraceful Mugabe-style legislation which was quite an over-the-top reaction to a pretty simple bill. In his speech tonight he described this bill as a nuts and bolts bill and of course nuts and bolts are his speciality so we are taking his advice in that respect. We were very pleased to hear the way in which he described the bill tonight. He was topped in his language—surprisingly really— only by the much calmer Dr Nick Smith. He said that he knew of no time in his 17 years when he had seen legislation that would bring this Parliament into as much “disrespute” as this legislation does. 
Hon Annette King 
: “Disrespute!” 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is the exact word he used. That is a direct quote from that master of the English language. 
Anyway this is not a time for politics. This is a time for us to comment on what is a very small bill as Mr Brownlee said. It received no submissions in the select committee. It was considered in the proper parliamentary way by a select committee. It has not been considered under urgency. It requires us to come up with a proper permanent definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” by 31 December next year. Labour signalled at the first reading its desire to work with the Government to come up with such a definition because this bill rolls over an interim meaning. 
We support the bill. We believe that it deserves proper scrutiny. As Mr Brownlee rightly says it is to formalise the arrangements we have for the service of our constituents and of the parties that are represented here in the House. We support the bill and we welcome the much more moderate language being used in the consideration of its passage through the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4351] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill empowers members of Parliament to incur expenditure in the exercise of their office. It is worth noting in these times when there is quite a bit of interest in the expenses of members of Parliament that those expenses relate entirely to the cost of the provision of services inside electorates predominantly. Members of Parliament themselves do not receive this funding. They are simply required to superintend expenditure in that regard. It is expenditure on simple matters like the rental of an office space somewhere in the country usually where that member has taken a representative position or is the elected member and also in the course of ensuring that there are staff in those offices to meet constituents’ needs. 
This bill came about because a previous decision was made to have another look at the issue as a result of the Auditor-General’s discussions with Parliament and an inquiry into the expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service around the time of the 2005 general election. There are moves afoot to change the way in which parliamentary expenses for members of Parliament are reported. This bill is very much about the nuts and bolts of how the place operates and it provides as it states for the continuation of an interim meaning in order that the Parliament might take more time in a more public way to deal with those matters. It is worth noting that although there is widespread support for this bill it has been dealt with in a way that is quite usual for bills. There has been no attempt to railroad it through in any other way and there is no personal advantage to any single MP in the passing of this bill. I want to stress that very very strongly. 
The National Government of course supports this bill. I understand it will receive widespread support this evening and I commend it to the House.
Heatley Phil: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4351] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
 I move  
That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee report to the House on or before 30 September 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Henare Tau: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4349] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 This bill the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill amends the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. It establishes the Crown’s obligation to deliver a settlement equivalent to 20 percent of the aquaculture space that was approved between September 1992 and December 2004 prior to the Act coming into force. The settlement includes a cash payment of $97 million. I commend this bill to the House.
Peachey Allan: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4345] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 I appreciate the opportunity to give the final speech in the second reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I do not propose to traverse the issues that previous members from all sides of the House have covered as those issues have been very clearly enunciated. This comes after long and detailed discussion and debate at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
I make reference to the select committee process because this bill was first introduced by the previous Labour Government and was picked up by the new National Government and it has been in that spirit that the select committee did its work. The committee was very ably assisted by the niggardly determination of Mr Mallard who displayed a strong grasp of the detail of the legislation and was prepared to raise difficult issues that forced the committee to step back a little bit and think and surely that is what the select committee process is all about. He was considerably aided by the patience of the chairman David Bennett. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Mr Bennett. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He did a good job. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: He did a very good job. It was complex material but when one boils it down it comes down to three very simple things. As previous members have spoken in detail on these matters I will simply draw attention to them in drawing this debate to a close. 
Firstly the bill provides more comprehensive drug-driving laws. I do not think any reasonable New Zealander would have any issue with that at all. Sure it may be as has been said a work in progress but it is a very very good start. Certainly as a result of the work of the committee some important issues around the rights of citizens balanced against the need for law have been addressed. My hunch is that this will work pretty well. The second intention is to provide more privacy provisions for access to the motor vehicles register. Again this is a case as much as anything of getting things in balance protecting the rights of the individual but also granting access to information when it is required. The third intent of the bill—and it is one that gives it a little bit of urgency at this time—is to preserve provisions in various transport Acts that are due to expire on 1 July 2009. I commend the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House for its support. 
Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4337] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 There being no other speakers I will make a very brief comment. In all my years in Parliament the last 4 or 5 months that I have had on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when dealing with the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) have been one of the most civil—outside of the Maori Affairs Committee—and well-intentioned times on a select committee. The Hon Trevor Mallard hit it on the head when he said that the committee listened very intently to what the officials had to say. This is an area—and I agree with my colleague David Bennett—where it is about a starting point; I do not think we are where the previous Minister wants to be straight away but it is a starting point. I think it is a great jumping off point. Over the last couple of years as we have seen the whole issue of drug use and how it impinges on and affects our society and communities we get more and more willing and able to see the effects and say “OK this is what we need to do with this situation.” I think the bill is a great starting point. 
I must admit that I agree with a lot of what the Hon Trevor Mallard is talking about but I also say that we should start from a position where we can have some wins and some doables and then see where we can stretch the legislation out a wee bit more over time. I know that the previous Minister said that there are issues that the community finds reprehensible and the examples she gave were very good ones but we have to start somewhere. There is a whole lot of other stuff in this bill as well with licensing and what not but the issue of drug-driving is one for the now. Unless we start from a point where we can get some wins on the board and some doables I say think we might miss the opportunity. I do not want to take up too much more time but I say thank you and that my colleague was a great chairman.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4330] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4329] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words after “that” be omitted and the following be inserted: “this House have no confidence in the National Government led by John Key because the 2009 Budget fails to provide an effective plan to address the growing number of jobs lost and the increasing numbers of New Zealanders worried about losing their livelihoods and their homes fails to build a foundation on which New Zealand can emerge from the recession in a stronger position to take advantage of an economic upturn and fails to deliver on the promises and personal guarantees made by John Key in the election campaign just 6 months ago.” 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4284] 
11.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has she received on the Community Response Fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 I have seen a report that shows that 19 regional forums will have been held by the end of this week. One forum attracted over 300 people. To date information has been distributed to over 1500 people and organisations and in 1 week 2500 had accessed information from the website. The evidence speaks for itself. The National Government listens to the needs of the non-government sector and takes action. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much money can community groups apply for under the Community Response Fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This is an opportunity to go on record and clear up some of the myths out there. Non-governmental organisations will be able to access up to $50000 in one funding round and for exceptional cases up to $100000. There will be three rounds per year and organisations will be able to apply more than once. Applications for the fund can be made at any time. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What level of interest has there been from non-governmental organisations in applying for the fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There has been a huge sense of relief that the funding promised under the Pathways to Partnership will stay within the social services sector and yes this Government will deliver it differently. The Government has already started talking with the sector about how we will move forward together and in particular how the sector can ensure a high degree of alignment of services and not duplication. 
Hon Annette King 
: What is the Minister’s reaction to the Women’s Refuge which has said that the change to Pathways to Partnership in favour of the Community Response Fund is a backward step that baseline funding is now in a shaky position and that the Minister’s policy puts rural and isolated communities further at risk? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would certainly encourage them to apply to the fund. But let me also put forward Mr Murray Edridge who has said: “We are very pleased the Government has acknowledged that the demand on social services in the community … is increasing”. Let me also put forward Trevor McGlinchey from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services who has said that prior to the recession providers of social services were already expressing that concern. There has been such a huge outcry from non-governmental organisations which are extremely grateful for this funding.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4282] 
9.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What reports has he received regarding New Zealand’s hoki fishery? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
 The Ministry of Fisheries’ latest science shows that things are looking good for New Zealand’s hoki fishery. The western hoki stock is recovering well after several years of very slow growth. My understanding is that the stock is now within sustainable target levels. The eastern hoki stock continues to show good results. 
Colin King 
: What work has been undertaken by the Ministry of Fisheries and the industry to make these results happen? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The industry and the Ministry of Fisheries have been working together on a rebuilding strategy to help the western stock’s recovery and catch limits have been progressively reduced. A successful rebuilding strategy in the hoki fishery was actually part of a requirement for Marine Stewardship Council recertification. These results show the good faith of all parties and the robustness of the Marine Stewardship Council certification. We are keen to see other fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council so having success in hoki is very very important.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Dr Richard Worth National 
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Dr Richard Worth National 
[Volume:655;Page:4271] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Richard Worth resigning his seat in the House with effect at 9 a.m. today 16 June 2009.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:4354] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 The House has made very good progress this evening on a range of things. We are literally a few minutes away from the time at which the House is scheduled to rise; accordingly I seek leave for the House to rise early at this point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4330] 
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Resignations — Dr Richard Worth National 
Resignations — Dr Richard Worth National 
[Volume:655;Page:4271] 
Tuesday 16 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Dr Richard Worth National 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Richard Worth resigning his seat in the House with effect at 9 a.m. today 16 June 2009.