edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1515] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Briefly Part 3 reflects Part 3 of the Law Practitioners Act and sets out the criteria for admission as a barrister and solicitor. Candidates for admission will continue to have to meet the criteria specified by the New Zealand Council of Legal Education.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 29 are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 26. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clauses 31 and 32 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 33(2) and (3) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 33(4) is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision. The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in his name to clause 34A are also out of order. The amendment to clause 34B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in his name is out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 33. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to the chapeau of clause 35 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 35(a) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 36(1)(b) and (c) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 289 and 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1514] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all Dr Worth’s amendments to clause 28 to be taken as one question and not to have individual votes on them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that to happen. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. We will proceed as we have agreed. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 28 be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 27(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 26(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4) and substitute the following subclause: 
(4)Section 24 does not restrict the right of a lawyer who is not entitled to practise on his or her own account to act in any community law centre whose employing body comprises one or more lawyers qualified to practise on his or her own account under the direct supervision of a lawyer qualified to practise on his or her own account and employed by that community law centre or with the approval of the Legal Services Agency.
Wagner Nicky: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1512] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with restrictions on the provision of legal services and conveyancing services. But what will that mean to the public of New Zealand? As a layperson I am not particularly interested in the law or in lawyers and much of what they talk about. To me as a layperson most of what lawyers do is not even vaguely relevant. But I Joe Public like the sound of a bill that states its purposes are to maintain public confidence in the provision of conveyancing and legal services to protect the consumers of those services to recognise the status of the legal profession and to establish a new profession of conveyancing practitioners. I feel better when I think that someone is protecting my rights and that that person is a professional. 
The chances are that the only time I will interact with lawyers is when I intend to buy a house and when I do that I want the matter to be dealt with efficiently effectively and cheaply. I want someone to make sure I do not make a terrible mistake. I want to pay for and get what I am expecting. I do not want to pay the wrong person. I do not want to have the surprise of discovering that a motorway is to be built right next door and I do not want my money to disappear during the transaction. I want to be very sure that in the future I will have a clear title to the property. Buying a house will probably be the biggest purchase of my life and up until now like most New Zealanders I have trusted a lawyer to do that for me. The system has worked pretty well. Sure there have been glitches but in comparison with land courts in other parts of the world we do well. 
Part 2 of the bill defines who can be a lawyer and how he or she can practice. It outlines the penalties for people who pretend to be something they are not. As a layperson that is important to me. I need to know that those whom I employ are qualified to advise me well and to protect me and my property. The bill also defines who can do my conveyancing services. As a layperson it is all the same to me as long as the job is done properly. The bill requires that both lawyers and conveyancers have a practising certificate and as long as the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers do the job properly and ensure the required standards are met I am a happy consumer. From my point of view I want to receive professional advice at the right time at the right place and without excessive cost. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to the heading to Part 2 be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1510] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 2 of the bill contains the title protection provisions. It will be an offence to use the term “lawyer” or “law practitioner” if one is not entitled to do so. This part also defines the areas of work that are restricted to lawyers and licensed conveyancers. The Government Supplementary Order Paper amendments clarify that the bill will not prevent State sector non-lawyer employees from carrying out functions they currently perform legitimately. These amendments address concerns raised by the Inland Revenue Department in relation to the definitions of conveyancing and legal services. Government Supplementary Order Papers also clarify that patent attorneys can continue to undertake intellectual property conveyancing functions. These amendments are supported by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1510] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in his name to clauses 6 and 13 and the amendment set out on Supplementary Paper 347 in his name to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in his name to clause 13 be agreed to. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clauses 6 and 13 as amended the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 289 and 347 in his name to Part 1 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments and amendments as amended agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1510] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 13 be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1510] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clauses 10A and 10B be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 9A be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 8 be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 7 to omit clause 7A and to clause 7B be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1509] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is probably the right time to seek similar accommodation from the Committee for dealing with Government amendments to remaining clauses—that all amendments dealing with any particular clause be dealt with as a single question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that to be done. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The further amendments are to clause 6 and are all in the name of Dr Richard Worth. They are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 and they relate to the omission of certain matters. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 6 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1508] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have already voted on one of those amendments to clause 6. I am asking whether that stands alone and the balance of those amendments will be voted on as one question. Maybe the Clerk can help us with that interpretation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes it will. I realise I should have actually read out the first one which would have clarified the position. All these amendments relate to definitions. The first one related to definitions of matters relating to conveyancers and conveyancing. We have dealt with that one so the leave relates to the remainder of those amendments to clause 6. Is that clear? There is no objection to that. We will proceed along that course.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1508] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 All of Mr Worth’s amendments? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1508] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before the vote is put I just ask for your indulgence. We are voting on clause 6 and the related Supplementary Order Paper which my colleague Dr Worth and I are looking at is 344. We have just voted on clause 6 and now you are mentioning another amendment to clause 6—am I mistaken—on Supplementary Order Paper 344. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. The one we just voted on—I perhaps should have read it all out but it was a bit long— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Is it on Supplementary Order Paper 344? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In terms of the amendments to clause 6 mentioned there did we vote on only part of those amendments to clause 6? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Absolutely. It was one of the amendments to clause 6. There are further amendments to clause 6. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: My apologies Mr Chairman; I see where you are coming from. My comment earlier on in the point of order was that we treat all those amendments to clause 6 as one vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would not suggest that. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No—I am seeking leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Certainly Mr Tisch. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed—that all the amendments to clause 6 be treated as one vote. Is there any objection to that course?
Simich Clem: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1508] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is also in relation to clause 6 an amendment in the name of Dr Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 to omit paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of course of study. Those who agree with that amendment please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion “No”. The Noes have it.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Minister may have amendments; I am referring only to the amendments put forward by Dr Worth. In the case of amendments from other members or from the Government we would look to accommodate whatever course of action they wish to take. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That is the way we will proceed. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit a number of definitions from clause 6 be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek clarification. A number of amendments relate to some of those clauses some of which are Government amendments and some of which are not. Therefore we may need differential voting on those amendments. I am a little unclear as to what the member proposes.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We note that the Committee is voting on amendments to a number of clauses. We seek leave to have the votes on the amendments of which there are a number to clauses 7 7A and 7B—which we will come to after clause 6—taken as one vote. Similarly we seek leave to have the votes on the amendments to clauses 10A and 10B taken as one vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No mention of clause 6? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No—clause 6 stands alone so that vote would be put separately. Only— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 7 to 7B and 10A to 10B? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection?
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1507] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 3(2)(d) be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1506] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 3(2)(c) be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1506] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 3(2)(b) be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1506] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 3(1)(c) be agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1504] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1502] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1502] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1502] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I cannot let it go unnoticed that in the absence of Rodney Hide we have actually finished questions before 3 o’clock. It demonstrates how much time he wastes in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is noted however.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1500] 
11.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is he satisfied that his department is fulfilling the purpose of the corrections system which is to “improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society”; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes because it does a good job in a difficult area of Government responsibility. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister believe that movies such as  
Getting Away with Murder 
  
Interview with the Assassin 
  
Wild Things 2 
 and  
Sex and Lucia 
 all rated R or R18 are suitable movies for prisoners to be watching; and what impact does he believe that watching such movies has on efforts put into prisoner rehabilitation and the maintenance of a just society? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not believe that those movies are appropriate. The policy in this area has been breached and the staff have been told again that it is not acceptable. I would like the House to note that I understand there was also a very good turn-out for other movies namely  
Babe 
  
The Brady Bunch Movie 
 and  
101 Dalmatians 
. 
Simon Power 
: Why if the department knew in 2002 that prisoners were watching movies contrary to prison policy are prisoners still watching hundreds of movies that they are not permitted to—movies that show hard-core violence drug abuse and jailbreaks; and what will the Minister do to ensure that it does not happen again other than wring his hands in 4 years’ time? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware that  
Babe 
  
The Brady Bunch Movie 
 or  
101 Dalmatians 
 have violence or any other sordid details in them. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment in the media that many of the movies referred to were a form of “escapism”; if so is this part of the Department of Corrections programme? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have seen that quote but can I say once again that this was a breach of policy. Staff will be reminded about the policy and we will endeavour to prevent it ever happening again. 
Chester Borrows 
: Is the department using movies rather than rehabilitation programmes and work schemes to deal with prisoners and is that why over 2000 movies are being shown in 1 year rather than prisoners undertaking work programmes that could see them making a valuable contribution to society on their release? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have said before we are reviewing the work programmes. We are committed to increasing the amount of work that inmates do and I guess that there will be less time for watching movies in the future. 
Simon Power 
: Are rehabilitation programmes and work schemes a better option for prisoners or is it just easier to show films like  
Messenger of Death 
  
Out for Justice 
 and  
Out for a Kill 
? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Rehabilitation programmes are much better for them.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1499] 
10.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on how New Zealand’s work to prepare for an influenza pandemic compares internationally? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. Dr Omi the World Health Organization Regional Director of the Western Pacific said yesterday that New Zealand is among the best-prepared countries in the world for a possible flu pandemic. This is a significant endorsement of the efforts of communities businesses and the Government. But it is important to remember that there is still a good deal of work left to be done. 
Maryan Street 
: Will New Zealand’s efforts to prepare for a flu pandemic be of use to other countries; if so how? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes they will. The World Health Organization will use the Ministry of Health’s public awareness campaign including the brochures and broadcast advertising as a model for other Governments to follow. That will be a significant help to developing countries with limited resources to produce campaigns of their own. 
Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister have any response to the Health Committee’s recent report on a potential flu pandemic? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The report was helpful in part but it is also the case that it was about 3 months out of date and pandemic planning is a fast-moving business. That is why I wrote 2 weeks ago to all the health spokespersons in the House to invite them to make their contribution. I have had conversations with or responses from every health spokesperson in the House with the exception of the National Party health spokesperson. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government is so prepared and so advanced in its pandemic planning where is the plan on how we will mobilise people to care for the sick at home? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This is probably the umpteenth time that the question has been asked of me and I again give the answer as I have in the past that in the event of a worst-case scenario pandemic there will not be enough people who are fit and able to provide home-based services for all who need them. That is to say most of the home-based services will come from families and close friends in a worst-case scenario. There is no way that we can invent a population of fit and health people to do that when 40 percent of the population have the flu.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1495] 
6.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on burglaries in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen the recent report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled  
New Zealand Police: Dealing with dwelling burglary—follow-up audit  
The report states that the police have made considerable improvements in how they deal with dwelling burglaries since 2001. That includes more effective use of forensic and intelligence analysis increased accountability for results and a greater sharing of good practice. 
Jill Pettis 
: What recommendations did the report of the Controller and Auditor-General make? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The report made six recommendations ranging from evaluating the role of some staff through to looking at the effectiveness of intelligence-led policing in reducing crime. The police are now working through those recommendations. There are some things the police could do better and they are committed to doing just that. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will the additional 1000 sworn front-line officers and 250 non-sworn police staff secured in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour have a significant effect on burglary resolution rates? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question. Yes we will continue to see very good work from our police in this area and in many other areas of crime that concern New Zealanders.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1493] 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen many positive reports on the scheme both from within and outside New Zealand. A typical statement came today from the Investment Savings and Insurance Association: “The savings industry welcomes KiwiSaver as a major step towards an effective efficient and easily accessible long-term saving option.” 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the need to stimulate future savings in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a 1998 report that states that increasing national savings is New Zealand’s key challenge. The report goes on state: “I’m frankly not sure how this culture of low household-sector saving can be changed.” Unlike the author of that report the then Governor of the Reserve Bank now the Leader of the Opposition who could point only to higher interest rates as the solution this Government does have ideas for addressing the challenges that face savings in New Zealand. 
John Key 
: Would rising after-tax wages assist workers’ ability to save; if so what is the impact on after-tax wages when a worker’s taxes are reduced? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unfortunately in New Zealand as after-tax wages have increased over the last 10 years people’s borrowing has increased even further. I am afraid we show a high propensity to borrow rather than to save out of increased income which may be why privately the member has been saying he supports the KiwiSaver scheme while publicly opposing it. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any other reports that compare the scheme to other savings vehicles? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a report claiming that the scheme which follows pretty standard managed funds savings schemes represented a glorified Christmas club. Although saving 4 to 8 percent of one’s income may seem like Christmas savings to former merchant bankers most New Zealanders would see that as covering a little more than a Christmas hamper.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1491] 
2.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: On what basis was the list of students drawn up whose New Zealand birth certificates certificates of citizenship or passports were required during last year’s roll audit of Kamo Intermediate School in Whangarei? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that as is standard practice the names were chosen at random by the auditor who has extensive experience in auditing schools-related funding claims. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How in a Northland school with only 4 percent of its roll new-immigrant children could the following list be described as a random selection: Sun Jung Kim Ja Yeon Kim Phillip Kwok Suzanne Kwok Wen Lee Hollins Packijarajah Melissa Wong Karlis Zvirgzdins Matiss Zvirgzdins Jimmy Hei Hei Miae Kang Bhagwat Lal Indigo Bouras Yi Tin Lin Ping-Yu Lin and Karl Fountain? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not know what the names of the rest of the pupils in the school are; they may well go on in the same fashion that the member outlined. But I can advise the member that I am advised that those names were chosen at random by the auditor who has a lot of experience in auditing schools-related funding claims. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How does the Minister believe the parents of Melissa Wong who is a third-generation New Zealander feel about her being picked out on suspicion that she is illegally attending school simply because of her name? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If that was the case then of course I would feel the same as those parents would feel: that that is not a good idea. But I want to say it is common practice that a random group of students is picked and from what I am told that is what happened in this case. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister consider the list an example of his Government’s policy of ethnic exclusivity or are students being selected for special scrutiny on the basis of presumed ethnicity? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What members need to understand is that the audit was about people checking passports birth certificates and so on. What we found was that 17 students at the school could not be accounted for. The school was asked for more information. The list dropped to three students. Those three students are now fee-paying students and the rest are registered at the school in the normal way.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Members’ Notice of Motion No. 3—Order of Business 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Members’ Notice of Motion No. 3—Order of Business 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move my members’ motion No. 3 on the Order Paper relating to the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention centre. I have negotiated with all the parties. The wording of the motion is similar to a motion passed by all party blocs in the European Parliament on 16 February so it should meet with the approval of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Members’ Notice of Motion No. 3—Order of Business 
Points of Order — Members’ Notice of Motion No. 3—Order of Business 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
Points of Order 
Members’ Notice of Motion No. 3—Order of Business 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move my members’ motion No. 3 on the Order Paper relating to the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention centre. I have negotiated with all the parties. The wording of the motion is similar to a motion passed by all party blocs in the European Parliament on 16 February so it should meet with the approval of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Benson-Pope David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 12 May 2005 
Benson-Pope David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 12 May 2005 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in terms of Standing Order 350 in relation to an answer I gave to a supplementary question on Thursday 12 May 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 12 May 2005 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 12 May 2005 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 12 May 2005 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in terms of Standing Order 350 in relation to an answer I gave to a supplementary question on Thursday 12 May 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the European Parliament led by Mr Neil Parish is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation 
Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation 
[Volume:629;Page:1489] 
Tuesday 28 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
European Parliament—Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the European Parliament led by Mr Neil Parish is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1646] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 and that the committee finally report the bill back to the House on or before 22 May 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1632] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to participate in the first reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I thought it was a little churlish for the member who has just resumed her seat Judith Collins to carry on about Mr Nick Smith who obviously had little influence in terms of finding a real solution to the problem as opposed to what the Government has been able to do. 
I would like to reiterate the words of the Minister for Social Development and Employment David Benson-Pope when he congratulated Mrs Barbara White the lead petitioner who brought the matter to the attention of the House via a petition and of course her excellent advocate in that matter the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was with her every step of the way. Not many petitions make it right through to this particular instance of having legislation created directly from them. So I congratulate Mrs White on achieving that outcome if she happens to be listening to the debate this evening and I hope she is pleased the bill has come to this point. 
This is another example of Labour delivering its election promises. The bill extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants who have a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment and this bill will do it. That change will mean that nearly $20 extra per week will go to approximately 2000 qualifying older New Zealanders. It is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants veterans and pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran and what better timing could there be for such a bill? 
In conclusion I look forward to the House sending the bill to the Social Services Committee. We were very pleased to consider the petition of Mrs White which prompted this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Carter Chris: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1630] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Trade: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
 with an instruction that the committee present its report to the House on or before 13 March 2006 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 on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Field Taito Phillip: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1630] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I distinctly recall John Hayes including in his accusation reference to Mr Locke supporting not only Pol Pot but Stalin as well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. He didn’t accuse Keith Locke of being a supporter of Stalin. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He has withdrawn the main one so I think we will leave it at that. But I thank you for raising that Mr Locke. 
Bill read a first time.
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1630] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member over there said: “But not to Stalin.” He is implying I supported Stalin. I never supported Stalin. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I didn’t say that at all. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is wrong with saying “Stalin”? Who— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It was Maurice Williamson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debatable point. But thank you for raising it.
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1629] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that speech John Hayes made accusations against me and previously in this Parliament members have been forced to withdraw and apologise for saying that I supported Pol Pot. I never supported Pol Pot in his crimes and that member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite right Mr Locke. But the issue was raised and— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: But the member did not withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That matter Mr Hayes should not have been raised in the way it was. I ask you to withdraw the reference to Mr Locke being a supporter of Pol Pot. 
John Hayes 
: I withdraw. [ 
Interruption 
]
Ririnui Mita: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1613] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1613] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill read a first time.