edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Adams Amy: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4100] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the chance to rise and speak in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill this evening. I will begin by saying that it was in my electorate of Selwyn that on Wednesday last week a female security officer was attacked behind Christchurch International Airport. I know that that incident has been spoken about before in the House during this debate but as the MP representing the area I want to say that it was an action and an event that absolutely horrified us. I know that none of us would wish to see it repeated and I am sure all of us would come together in absolutely deploring it. 
This Government will not tolerate loutish offensive intimidating behaviour by these illegal street racers. Although the bill focuses on the impact of the drivers the point made before the dinner break was a good one—that although we are dealing with traffic offences the real issue has become not just the driving but what has evolved from that which is a culture of bullying intimidation and mob mentality that has to be put to an end. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that issue. 
It is true to say that many of the actions we talk about concerning illegal street racers are already illegal. The problem is that the tools in the law are simply not adequate for the police to make a significant difference and significant inroads. I believe that this bill and the sister bill that will follow it will see significant inroads being made into the problem as we give the police the tools that will start to make a real difference—tools that will allow the police to clamp down on this cowardly and reprehensible conduct. 
We have heard these matters talked about already but some of the specific points to note are the ability that councils and road controlling authorities now have to put in place specific by-laws in relation to cruising and other matters and the compulsory impounding of cars involved in illegal street racing whereas previously that had been discretionary. The measure that I think is particularly relevant is not only making the penalties tougher but also making them far more relevant to boy and girl racers and focusing on the fact that fines mean nothing to that crowd. I have walked into many houses and seen thick bundles of fines pinned to the wall that frankly are a badge of honour. Piling up more fines will do nothing. We will make a difference only by getting stuck into their cars and their licences. 
This bill closes up a lot of the loopholes that exist in the law. It casts the net wider so that we can be more effective. It will help the courts and the police finally to make inroads into the problem of street racing. It is a significant problem there is no simple answer but this bill is an excellent start as is the bill that will follow it and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4084] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4084] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Guy Nathan: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4132] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 The National Government is very supportive of the aquaculture industry and indeed it is with a sense of privilege that I rise this evening to speak on the first reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. We believe that the aquaculture industry has the potential to provide large long-term economic gains. What I mean by that is that there will be sustainability for the coastline but also the creation of more jobs. We are investing $16 million a year in scientific research into the aquaculture industry which is very very important. 
Debate interrupted.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4132] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. It is a sensible solution to the impasse that we have found ourselves in when trying to deliver on the Treaty settlements division of the fisheries between Maori and other fishers and at the same time finding that the space in many areas was already largely full. The best spots had gone and finding 20 percent of the available area for allocation to Maori was going to be very difficult. It raised all sorts of questions about 20 percent of what exactly—20 percent nationwide or 20 percent regionally. It was a nightmare to try to deliver on that agreement regarding 20 percent of the total available area. 
That was made further difficult by some of the sustainability requirements for aquaculture as people have gradually realised that this gold rush industry does have limits. Those are not just that there are limits in terms of the visual space and the conflicts with other users of the marine environment but also that there is only so much in the way of nutrients that flow through a particular bay. If we put too many seafood farms in there then they will all starve each other. 
We can add to that the fact that most regional councils had not established aquaculture management areas as they are required to do under legislation and were relying on applicants to apply for plan changes in order to establish aquaculture management areas in particular areas where they wanted to put a farm. We could hardly expect Maori to do that for the sake of 20 percent of the total area. 
This bill is a sensible solution; it is a negotiated solution. It is good to see that the Crown and iwi were able to sit down together under two successive Governments and negotiate a solution that allows for cash to be paid so that Maori may purchase the rights to areas of the coastal space for fish farms from those who already have them thus keeping within the sustainability limits and delivering at the same time on the Treaty settlements that have been concluded in the past. It is a solution that everybody supports.
King Colin: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4129] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill and in doing so I acknowledge the speakers who spoke before me. I have great confidence in the Minister of Fisheries as he is very determined and has the understanding to get across the line on this very very sensitive issue. I also recognise Parekura Horomia and his sincere words with regard to what Maori will contribute in the long run to aquaculture to the economy and to the recovery of New Zealand from this recession. 
I just draw the House’s attention to how difficult it has been to get to this stage. In settling this matter we are increasing the options to the Crown by allowing it to use a cash settlement. That is because up until recently—May last year—every other avenue was looked at in the context of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. There was no way through and it was seen quite clearly to be an impediment to the industry going forward that 20 percent was to be awarded to Maori around the allocation of space prior to 2004. Everything came to a halt so it is great to see that a way has been found to get through this situation. I realise that those people who represent the iwi in the top of the South Island will be heartened. They will be anxious and enthusiastic to see this bill go forward to the Maori Affairs Committee and be given the due consideration it deserves. 
We have great faith also that the aquaculture industry will reach $1 billion by the year 2025. In thinking of that I cannot help imagining the Marlborough Sounds where there is Pelorus Sound which is a working sound and Queen Charlotte Sound which is basically a recreational sound. Effectively there is not a great deal of space left in that area. We have Tasman Bay and the Hauraki Gulf which are particular areas suited to aquaculture. However as much as they are suited to aquaculture they are also faced with tremendous obstacles to increasing the coastal plans that regional councils have put together to make sure more room is available. 
It is a great encouragement to see this bill have its first reading. We look forward to seeing it go to the select committee so that it comes back and is passed into law. But in doing so I just highlight to the House how much more our thinking must develop around the coastal occupation and coastal plans before we can realise an industry of aquaculture that will contribute $1 billion by the year 2025. Having said that this bill is a good bill. I look forward to seeing it go to the select committee and becoming law. On that basis I have pleasure in supporting the bill.
Finlayson Christopher: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4127] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill 
; that the committee report to the House on or before 10 September 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and 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.
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4127] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Henare Tau: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4109] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is interesting that when I had a look at the overview of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill I saw that it states that the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill is an omnibus bill. I thought it stated that the bill is an ominous bill. It will be an ominous bill for the street racers.
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4104] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 consider the bill; that the committee report to the House on or before 10 September 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet 
 at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and 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 and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4098] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have said for as long as there have been cars there has been a small number of mostly men but increasingly of women who have viewed the cars they drive as a symbol of their virility—of a thing to look cool in a tool in the mating ritual perhaps and certainly a means of light rebellion. The member Keith Locke’s comments about finding an outlet for using vehicles in that way might be valid for some but increasingly a number of these people do not actually seek to race their cars; they want to use them to intimidate to crowd out to commit property offences and increasingly to commit violent crimes against people. Certainly too often they are people in authority. So the impact of these changes that I think we are seeing in our society is that what we once would have considered a sort of James Dean act has now become an act of lawlessness on a scale that by any measure is completely intolerable. 
The Minister introducing the bill the Hon Steven Joyce and some others have talked about some quite high-profile incidents in Christchurch. Although the highest-profile cases appear to be in Christchurch even in my home city of Dunedin this problem is a growing one. At the weekend six cars were seized by police and bailiffs in a fines blitz that netted $21000 out of several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of outstanding fines. So that goes I think to the reason this legislation is necessary. There are two reasons as I see it: firstly the sanctions described by Ms Fenton and Mr Jones are not having the effect of moderating behaviour. Secondly although young people should be free to have a bit of rebellion so too should other members of our community be free from the sorts of things that are happening and be free to go about their business and their quiet enjoyment without the sorts of intolerable acts that are taking place. When we have moteliers not able to fill certain rooms because of the noise when hospital patients are being moved and when farm stock and horses are being spooked by this sort of behaviour then it behoves this House to do something about it. 
The so-called boy racers have thrown down a gauntlet to this House. They have thumbed their noses at its authority and scoffed at comments made by members of this Parliament that they should somehow be called to account for their illegal behaviour. I congratulate and wholeheartedly support the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Police and this Government which is prepared to take up that gauntlet. Those people who have been conducting these acts almost with impunity should look out because the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill along with a bill that will be introduced subsequently will have a serious impact on their freedom to terrorise other people in our community. I support the bill for that reason.
Peachey Allan: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4091] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and commend the Minister of Transport for bringing the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill before the House for its first reading. I also note with pleasure that the Labour Opposition supports the bill’s referral to a select committee and I look forward as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to working constructively and positively with Ms Fenton and her colleagues. This legislation is needed. I do not feel any need at all to go back through the clauses and provisions of the Land Transport Act; the Minister did that superbly well. I will make a couple of observations. 
The first is that this Government once again is acting decisively and quickly in the interests of the community. The community wants this measure the Government is acting and it is good that there will be agreement across the House on this legislation. I reflect on how it could be that in this country as a result of the behaviour of boy racers patients in a Christchurch hospital had to be moved out of road-facing rooms. There was a time in this country when that would never ever have been necessary. The lesson for the boy racers coming from this bill is that the scales are being tipped against them. Boy racers may have become accustomed to ignoring the law to flouting it and to believing that there were no consequences. This bill begins to change that. The message is clear: the community and this Parliament will no longer put up with having the law treated with contempt. This bill makes significant steps forward as I say in shifting the balance to the good people of the community. I commend it to the House.
Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4086] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committee consider the bill; 
 that the committee report to the House on or before 5 October 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and 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 and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4084] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying when the debate was interrupted the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill has a number of fundamental principles attached to it one of which is the provision of stable housing. It attempts to clarify the rights and obligations of both tenants and landlords. That is important because we need to recognise that like the employment situation the residential tenancy situation is not always a level playing field and the stakes for people are quite different. For people renting their house that is their home. It is a place where they live with their family and bring up their family. Hopefully they make connections in their community and their children go to school there and so on. Although it is important to get right that balance of the rights of both tenants and landlords it is also important to know that tenants have a lot at stake in terms of their residential property. 
So when we look at this bill we see that some changes have been made to the original Labour bill and I want to highlight them for people. We have supported this bill going to a select committee but we will be scrutinising some of these changes. In the bill that Labour put forward we talked about limiting the tenant liability for damage to their rental premises to 4 weeks’ rent if the Tenancy Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant neither caused the damage intentionally or recklessly nor intentionally or recklessly encouraged or permitted another person to damage the premises. We also allowed for tenants’ breaches such as subletting without consent overpopulating the premises or becoming a problem neighbour to be subject to exemplary damages as an alternative to eviction. That is important because eviction means ultimately that people are on the street without a house in some situations. Those provisions have been removed from the bill. So during the select committee consideration we will certainly be looking to improve the bill along those lines and if necessary introducing amendments to that effect. 
Clause 35 would require the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in a case where a tenant has permitted someone else to assault or threaten to assault specified persons including the tenant’s landlord and neighbours. That has related to a particular Housing New Zealand Corporation case of recent incident. In that case gang members staying with Housing New Zealand Corporation - tenanted partners allegedly threatened neighbours.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4061] 
10.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is the Government doing to put more police on the streets of New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 As promised the Budget has provided $182.5 million for 600 extra police to help keep New Zealanders safe. Three hundred will go to the Counties-Manukau Police District by the end of next year and there will be 300 more across the country by the end of 2011. The Government’s top priority has been to increase the number of front-line police and this funding honours that commitment. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What will the impact be of 300 extra police in Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I expect that it will lead to a police service that is better able to respond to crime and whose visibly increased presence will deter crime in the Counties-Manukau region. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will other districts in New Zealand benefit from the Government’s commitment to provide extra police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As a result of this Government’s commitment to achieving a police to population ratio of 1:500 by the end of 2011 another 300 police will have been recruited and will be serving throughout other parts of New Zealand to boost current district policing requirements. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that 600 extra police are being put on the streets by National when she knows that approximately 380 of those new police recruits had already been funded by Labour in Budget 2008 which means in fact that National’s total contribution over the next 3 years is just 75 more police officers a year—not much more than one police officer per electorate? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As everybody in New Zealand should now know most of the Labour Government’s policies were not actually funded. These ones are.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4061] 
9.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What services will be cut and how many jobs will be lost at the Department of Conservation as a result of the $54 million cut in funding over 4 years? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Let me repeat the essential point already made by the Prime Minister today in response to what was essentially exactly the same question. The $54 million of savings over the next 4 years have to be seen against the context of more than $1.5 billion of expenditure and the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. For the last 5 years money has been pouring into agencies of State; this Government is demanding productivity enhancements. I am happy to say that the Department of Conservation is among the better-managed agencies and I am confident that it can achieve these extremely modest savings without compromising any of its core objectives. In respect of job retention I say that we are seeing a large number of vacancies; the department will be relying on them plus natural attrition. I am confident that the core objectives will be achieved. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Government cut funding for the output class “Management of natural heritage” which covers weed and pest control in national parks and other Crown land managed by the Department of Conservation by $9 million this year alone? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Government has made a variety of very modest savings which have been expected of the department including some low-priority pest and weed control. On the other hand the department will be getting increased funding for a number of other conservation objectives that I think are a much higher priority. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister know that weed and pest control are labour-intensive and are a relatively inexpensive source of jobs in a time of recession and that this funding cut may result in the loss of as many jobs as have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I have already made it clear that the department will be relying on vacancies and natural attrition to achieve its objectives. We have also increased spending on two of the non-departmental votes that will contribute to exactly those objectives and I am confident that the core principles of the department will be adequately maintained. I note that the total spend of $419 million is $100 million more than the department’s budget as recently as 2007.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4060] 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made in relation to hospice funding? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite inheriting a public health system with serious workforce shortages the Government has committed an extra $60 million over the next 4 years for New Zealand hospices. Hospices have long been supported by public funding together with a very large amount of voluntary work and funding. This announcement will help sustain the work that these very good New Zealanders are undertaking. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What are the details of how this $15 million per year is to be shared among different regions? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Ministry of Health has been working with hospices and district health boards to establish individual shortfalls and has agreed allocations that essentially enable each hospice to have around 70 percent of its costs covered by Government or district health board funding. In addition for those areas without hospices palliative care funding has been allocated to ensure that those areas are not disadvantaged. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why has the Minister agreed to $10 million worth of cuts to home-based personal care and housework rest home and dementia level care respite care and carer support including palliative care in the Otago community and how does that $10 million cut per year for just one district health board compare with the $15 million increase for hospices across the whole country? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am completely unaware of where the numbers quoted by the member come from. I suspect they are like the document she tried to table in the House last week: she just made it up and she was found out.
Locke Keith: Motions — Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
Locke Keith: Motions — Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
[Volume:654;Page:4049] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without debate members’ motion No. 4 in my name on Sri Lanka. I have consulted the party whips and they are agreeable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House note its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka and call upon the Sri Lankan Government to accede to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call for UN agencies to be given “immediate unhindered access” into the internally displaced persons camps in order to bring aid to those who desperately need it and ask the Sri Lankan Government to allow media access to the camps.  
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
Motions — Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
[Volume:654;Page:4049] 
Tuesday 2 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without debate members’ motion No. 4 in my name on Sri Lanka. I have consulted the party whips and they are agreeable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House note its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka and call upon the Sri Lankan Government to accede to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call for UN agencies to be given “immediate unhindered access” into the internally displaced persons camps in order to bring aid to those who desperately need it and ask the Sri Lankan Government to allow media access to the camps.  
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 8 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 8 agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 7 agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2567] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Locke Keith: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2558] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will of course be voting for Metiria Turei’s amendment to reduce the review period in the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to 5 years. 
As the previous speaker Grant Robertson said the bill applies to only one area Whanganui—with an “h”. But we have to look seriously at the terms of review particularly because looking around this Chamber and thinking of insignia and identification systems for people we can see that the males seem to be a form of gang wearing the same sort of identification or insignia. Looking around I see that every male is wearing one of these jackets and one of these ties. I think they are a gang against the other sex represented in this House which tends not to be a member of a gang. It may be something that we have to review particularly in relation to one gender and a short review period might be appropriate for that. I also see red insignia on this side of the Chamber and blue insignia on the opposite side—blue boxes. That may mean there are two gangs. There could be confusion. 
A serious review is appropriate. I think it would be hypocritical to look at this bill as applying only to Whanganui. It has implicitly perhaps more general application which is why we should review it at frequent intervals and hopefully scrub the whole law off the statute book. It is offensive it will not solve anything and it will lead to mayhem. Thank you.
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2558] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take a call on this particular clause because I want to speak in favour of Metiria Turei’s amendment that substitutes the words “5 years” for “10 years”. We have just voted through clause 5C which provides for a review of the by-laws under this legislation after 5 years. Clause 5D states that from that point on there should be a review no later than 10 years after the last review. For the very same reasons I have already talked about I believe that Metiria Turei’s amendment is correct. The problems we have identified with this bill will not go away after the first 5-year period. They need to be looked at again and again. 
 I believe that making criminal law for the specific district of Wanganui will create significant problems for the people of Wanganui and for the courts in the Wanganui region. That is the main reason why I believe we should be reviewing these by-laws not 10 years after the first 5-year period but indeed 5 years after each 5-year period. I think that is only fair for the people of Wanganui. If this bill passes we need to give the people of Wanganui an assurance that we will continue to keep our eye on this process. I believe we are giving people in Wanganui false hope that the problems caused by gangs in their region will somehow or other be eliminated by this particular law. For that reason we need to continue to review these by-laws. 
A 10-year period seems to be an excessively long period for those ongoing reviews to take place. Things can change a lot within a 5-year period; we certainly know that the behaviour of gangs can and does alter over time—their tactics change what they wear changes and the ways they identify themselves will no doubt change in that 5 to 10-year period. We need to ensure that the by-laws made under this bill are reviewed on a regular basis. Section 5D as it currently reads sets the date for the secondary reviews at 10 years after a by-law was last reviewed. Metiria Turei’s amendment substitutes 5 years for 10 years and I support that.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2558] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5C be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5C agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2558] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2568] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 9 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 9 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Locke Keith: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2564] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Since the Committee stage debate began a week or two back there has been a very significant development that affects this bill. We have already debated the title clause but since that time the New Zealand Geographic Board has agreed and proclaimed that “Wanganui” should be spelt “Whanganui”. It is important that this bill if it goes through—and of course I hope that it does not—should at least have the correct name in the title. I seek the leave of the Committee to move an amendment to the title clause to insert an “h” after the “w” in the first word of the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to insert an “h” into “Wanganui”. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2564] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 6 agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2562] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5F be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5F agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2562] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2561] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5E be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5E agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2561] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5D be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5D agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2561] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2557] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Douglas Roger: General Debate 
Douglas Roger: General Debate 
[Volume:653;Page:2549] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 At the present time New Zealand is suffering from its worst economic downturn in more than 50 years. Over the last 3 months of 2008 our economy contracted by around 1 percent and for the first 3 months of this year it has probably contracted by more than 1 percent. A net 47 percent of firms have said that activity worsened during that period. 
It is obvious that part of the reason for this downturn and the recession has been the financial crisis that has hit the world but more importantly the problems that New Zealand face have largely been of our own making. In fact if we look at the Government administration over the last 12 years we see that it is has probably been the worst period of Government in at least 70 years. I was part of the Kirk-Rowling Government and I cannot say that we were a particularly good Government; nor was the Muldoon Government of 1978-84. But the last 12 years have been the worst that I have ever seen and the previous Labour Government should be ashamed of its performance over the last 9 years. 
Why do I say this? That Government allowed Government expenditure to get out of control. In the 12 years between 1984 and 1996 Government spending in 2009-dollar terms actually went down. In that period Government expenditure in this country per head of population went down by $305 per year. In other words it was $305 lower in 1996 than it had been in 1984. But the reverse happened under a National Government between 1996 and 1999 and again under the Labour Governments that followed. In 2009 Government expenditure per head is $7567 more than it was in 1996 so a family of four is paying over $30000 in extra taxes to the Government—that is $587.07 a week to be precise. My question to the Labour Party is what do people get for that $587? Imagine how much better off people would be if they had that $587. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Those members do not like it do they? They robbed the people they claim to represent. They took $30000 off them and flushed it down the toilet on family commissions and all sorts of other things. 
 Not only that the consequences of transferring the $30 billion from the private sector to the public sector in that period which certainly included 3 years of National Government were a loss of productivity and a loss of output that probably cost New Zealand 2 percent a year or around 25 to 30 percent in productivity and wages. 
That has been the worst period of Government in living memory. Those previous Labour Government members should be ashamed of themselves. There was an increase for a family of four of $30000 in taxation. I ask the next speaker from Labour to tell me how much better it would have been for average families the people they claim to represent and whom I used to represent in Otara if they had had an additional $30000 in their pockets.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2541] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are very close to the 6 o’clock dinner break. I seek leave for the House to rise at this point and to resume again at 7.30. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. The House will resume at 7.30. 
Sitting suspended from 5.42 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
[Volume:653;Page:2533] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I interrupt this debate in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee for the Rt Hon Helen Clark to shortly make her valedictory statement. But first I have much pleasure in informing members that Kingi Tuheitia is within the precincts of this Chamber and I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Kingi Tuheitia entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — ACC Minister—Statements 
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — ACC Minister—Statements 
[Volume:653;Page:2522] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 During the course of question time today the Hon Trevor Mallard made claims of a statement about the New Zealand Press Association that resulted in the Speaker ruling that I had to answer as Minister an additional question. I seek the leave of the House to table the actual New Zealand Press Association report that Mr Mallard deliberately misquoted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the tabling of a report. Members are familiar with the report. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
[Volume:653;Page:2518] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance. This is a particular case of recent occurrence—the decisions were announced yesterday afternoon after the House had met—and it does involve ministerial responsibility. The announcement concerns governance arrangements that are of national significance and I consider they do require the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2518] 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he invite the Minister for ACC to attend the meeting of the committee on the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year held on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed that the Minister would attend the meeting of 12 March and I am not aware of any invitations made as chair of the select committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When the chair agreed was he agreeing with the proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I agreed that the Minister would attend and there was a lot of value in his attendance at that time because of the reconfiguration of the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When the chair agreed was he agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I agreed and the Minister did attend the meeting. There was much value there for members of the Labour Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think I have allowed as many supplementaries as is reasonable—far more than any other Speaker has previously allowed.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2517] 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did the Minister for ACC inform him that John Judge was not available to attend the committee meeting on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I did not ask Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of his availability. I did agree that the Minister would attend and Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister for ACC tell him that John Judge could not come? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of whether he was asked to attend. The Minister did attend and the Labour members got much value out of his attendance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister tell the chair that John Judge could not come to the committee? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We have had this question a number of times in this House. I did not ask Mr Judge to attend that meeting so it is not a matter of his availability.