edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13647] 
5. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What announcement has he made today on the rural broadband initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 The Government today issued the request for proposals for the Rural Broadband Initiative which close on 12 November 2010. The Government intends to sign a heads of agreement before the end of the year which will lead to new fibre being laid in the ground in rural areas shortly thereafter. With our approach I am confident that we will achieve our target of 80 percent of rural households and businesses having access to broadband services of at least 5 megabits per second and the remaining 20 percent on at least 1 megabit per second within the 6-year period of the policy. This will be a vast improvement in Internet experience for rural households. 
John Hayes 
: Why did the Government decide to take a national approach rather than a regional approach? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The expressions of interest informed that decision. We are now seeking national coverage proposals rather than regional proposals. It is clear that a range of national infrastructure companies will be able to meet the Government’s rural broadband objectives. In addition they have the financial backing to guarantee their proposal nationwide. It is also evident that although regional bidders were able to make a significant impact on broadband coverage in rural areas they would fall short of achieving the Government’s target for coverage. 
Clare Curran 
: How will the now national Rural Broadband Initiative fit the regional structure of 33 local fibre companies proposed for the urban ultra-fast broadband initiative and does he now see that as coming with one national supplier too? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: To answer the second part first no not necessarily. The reality is that the ultra-fast broadband— 
Clare Curran 
: Which one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well we have always said that it may be or it may not be. The reality is that the two initiatives are separate. They are proceeding separately under two separate processes. I am quite confident that they will knit together in much the same way that lines companies do in the electricity sector.
Goodhew Jo: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13591] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to have all parts of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Parata Hekia: Limitation Bill — Third Reading 
Parata Hekia: Limitation Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13590] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Otira ki a tatou i tenei ata tena koutou katoa. I rise to speak in the third reading of the Limitation Bill and I do so following the illustrious and comprehensive presentation made by the Attorney-General last night. At every phase of this bill he inspired us with the majesty of his comments as they relate to the Limitation Bill. I am aware that all around the country the lawyers and practitioners in this particular field are on their knees with gratitude that finally after three reports by the Law Commission we have this bill that updates the Limitation Act 1950. As members of the House who sat through this debate will know we enjoyed the technical detail that the Hon David Parker and the Attorney-General were able to swap with each other about the length of the longstop period and whether there should be the distinction drawn between claims relating to buildings and other types of claims—they gripped us with the detail that was attendant upon that discussion. We have at last an amending of an Act that has been in place for the last 60 years. It balances the rights of claimants to bring what they consider to be causes of action with defendants’ rights when after such a long passage of time the cause in their view may have become stale. 
I am pleased that we are at the point in this discussion where we will imminently be able to pass into law—since I believe all sides of the House are supporting it—this Limitation Bill. We have had the opportunity and it is apposite and appropriate to reiterate the contributions that all members of the Justice and Electoral Committee have made to this particular legislation. They have given it the scrutiny and the searing insights that this select committee has become known for as well as its burden of work—our select committee chair Chester Borrows reminded the Committee last night that 17 pieces of legislation have passed through this very hard-working committee. All members are to be applauded from the diminutive Ms Pillay to the hulking majesty of my colleague Mr Paul Quinn. He has brought his quick-witted sharp and incisive contributions not only to this bill but to all other bills that have come before our select committee. Indeed my colleague Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi has also offered his clear considered and deliberate approach to this legislation. I have been but a learner at the knees of these colleagues as I have joined this select committee. I am delighted to have learnt so much from them. I end by saying that this legislation all compliments aside really does add to the strong foundation of quality legislation that the National-led Government has been navigating through this House. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13654] 
1. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: What is the deadline for submissions to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The deadline for submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is 13 September. 
Darien Fenton 
: Was that deadline set before or after the bill passed its first reading and was referred to the select committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call David Bennett if he has the answer to that question. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The bill was referred to the committee on 19 August and the committee made a decision informally to open submissions after that time.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13655] 
2. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: What is the deadline for submissions to the Holidays Amendment Bill? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The deadline for submissions on the Holidays Amendment Bill is 17 September. 
Darien Fenton 
: Was that deadline set before or after this bill passed its first reading and was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The bill was referred to the committee on 24 August and the committee informally agreed that it would have submissions until 17 September.
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13653] 
11. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is Work and Income delivering services to seniors more effectively? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have been working hard to streamline services for our senior citizens: for example enhancing our senior citizens call centre operations. Previously all senior services operated on different opening hours which was confusing time-consuming and just plain inefficient. The new service line will operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 0800 552 002. 
Hekia Parata 
: How else are services for seniors improving? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Online services are becoming increasingly available. From April this year seniors have been able to apply online for their superannuation. Already around 4000 clients a month apply online which is about 10 percent. Seniors are the fastest-growing group when it comes to being savvy with information technology and we want to make sure they have access to that sort of service. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Can the Minister then tell the House how these administration changes really assist senior citizens the majority of whom are on fixed incomes to meet the rapidly rising costs of electricity rates and other household costs that have already outstripped the proposed small rise in superannuation that was intended to offset the Government’s increase in GST? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I do know for a fact is that the cost of electricity increased dramatically under the previous Government and it has not increased by anywhere near that amount under this Government so it has obviously been of benefit for those on superannuation to have the National Government representing them because previously we saw their costs going up exponentially. But there are efficiencies in services. There is access to the help that those senior citizens need and I certainly suggest that they contact us on the 0800 number that I have already mentioned.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13651] 
9. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received about the rate of escapes from New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the rate of escapes from New Zealand prisons has dropped to the lowest level the department has ever recorded. Over the past financial year there have been three escapes from places of custodial control and six “walk-aways” when low-security prisoners have walked away from supervision or escaped while being escorted. This compares with 12 escapes in 2008-09 and 23 in the previous year— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —23 when Mr Goff was the Minister. It is particularly impressive when one takes into account that the prison population is now at its highest ever level. The No. 1 priority of the Department of Corrections is keeping the public safe from our most difficult and dangerous people. I congratulate the department on its excellent effort. 
Melissa Lee 
: Can the Minister explain the reasons behind the record low number of escapes apart from the fact that she is a fantastic Minister? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not sure about the last bit of the question; I think I will deal with just the first part. The Department of Corrections has taken a comprehensive range of steps to ensure that prisoners remain safely behind bars. More sophisticated perimeter fencing new detection and surveillance systems improved intelligence and single points of entry into our prisons have all helped achieve this new record. The department has also brought in a new security classification system which has tightened the criteria that a prisoner must meet to be considered for employment in a work party outside the prison perimeter. This will further boost the department’s efforts to ensure that prisoners remain safely under lock and key. So well done to the Department of Corrections! 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even though the Minister was speaking very clearly and enunciating beautifully and is sitting only about 3 yards away from me I could not hear her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure that the member could hear her perfectly adequately. I think the member is trifling with me and wants to hear the answer given again but I think the House heard it perfectly well. I am surprised there are no more questions on the matter given the last supplementary question.
Huo Raymond: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Huo Raymond: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13588] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call. We heard the Attorney-General describe the day that the Limitation Bill passed its first reading as “a great day for black-letter law”. That reminded me of a 2007 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court observed: “What is required in New Zealand and has been required for some considerable time is a complete legislative overhaul of the Limitation Act. … The surgery now required is beyond the proper province of the courts.” So this bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the current Limitation Act 1950 with a new modern regime. The new regime will encourage claimants to make claims without undue delay in order to protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. The Limitation Act 1950 is an old piece of legislation and it needs to be updated. The Labour Party supports the proposed changes in this bill. The bill simplifies the limitation regime by providing a general civil limitation defence to most claims. 
Debate interrupted.
Bridges Simon: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13585] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Lynne Pillay is absolutely right—there is no fading memory there. She remembers Woodstock like it was yesterday. She talked about the current Limitation Act having come into force 60 years ago I think it was—I feel like listening to Chester Borrows more than her—and her 60 years have passed by very quickly indeed. I talked in my first reading speech I think about the 5 o’clock shadow that I was developing. It has now turned into a quarter to 12 mild mildewy moss. 
We have had some good speeches and like Lynne Pillay I will do a bit of backslapping. I agree with all the comments that she has made about the people who deserve thanks. She did not actually mention—or maybe she did but only in passing—someone who deserves a lot of praise in this process: Paul Quinn. Paul Quinn asked quick-fire questions in the Justice and Electoral Committee because of the rapid way that his mind works. He quickly got to the heart of the matter in the select committee and we need to keep that on record. Despite being quite a diminutive character who does not like to cause confrontation he cut through things very quickly unlike Hekia Parata whom we could not shut up! She just could not stop talking about this bill and raising important questions. 
I will very briefly in my last 30 seconds pick up on the issue that David Parker raised. I agree with what Chris Finlayson said when he was the Minister in the chair not long ago. He said that uniformity in limitation periods is to be encouraged. I would say that it does not need to be overly encouraged. As he pointed out there are many different pieces of legislation with different limitation periods. If we think about criminal law then that is obviously quite a different area of law with different policy considerations. In that area there is no longstop period at all. The best that one can hope for if one has been accused of a crime even 40 or 50 years down the track is a stay of proceedings and that would be in a case where one simply could not get a fair trial. So there are different longstop periods. There are different policy considerations at play. I do not think that we need to be afraid of that. Although uniformity is to be encouraged because it adds certainty to some extent it does not always need to be the case.
Borrows Chester: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13583] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I take it as a privilege to be able to take a call on the third reading of the Limitation Bill. I am pretty fired up about it at half past 11 at night. I have had a coffee and a wine gum and I reckon I could talk for hours about this bill. 
I would like to commend the contributions of those in the House. In the course of my cousin’s dissertation in the third reading he transported me back to studying civil procedure at Victoria University. I know that in hindsight he would prefer to have given me a grade higher than 51 percent. I find it incredible that someone who can be so eloquent has yet to discover the noble art of voice modulation. I do not know whether the rest of the House feels that way but I am just stating the way it is. It reflects that in the time that he was our lecturer on civil procedure he went off to Rome to do a course on conversational Latin. Does that explain why we are here debating the Limitation Bill at half past 11 at night? 
I also commend other contributors such as the honourable member Lynne Pillay who struggled to the top of the beer crate and managed to look over the top. She towered over Carmel Sepuloni! Carmel looked up at Lynne Pillay and asked her how the weather was up there. Lynne Pillay was thinking “Boy if only Pansy Wong could see me now!”. 
This bill is a wonderful piece of legislation. As I understand it the Minister of Justice who is in charge of this legislation was away and the Attorney-General the Hon Christopher Finlayson was sitting in his chair. After he had eaten all of the Minister’s peppermints and had found his pencils and given them a wee sharpen he started looking in the Minister’s bottom drawer for something to read. He came across the Limitation Bill and thought “Ah this is what I’ll do. While the Minister’s away the cat will play.”—or the mouse in this case. And away it went. The Limitation Bill came before our hard-working and efficient Justice and Electoral Committee and tonight it is at the zenith of its long career in the House. I know that Ms Pillay who was in form 1 when the first Limitation Bill went through is only too pleased to see this one overtake it before she steps down and hands the mantle over to somebody else. Congratulations.
Vote: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13579] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Huo Raymond: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Huo Raymond: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13574] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge the contributions made by my colleagues and by the Attorney-General. The Limitation Bill introduces the new unifying concept of a money claim—namely a claim for monetary relief whether in common law in equity or under an enactment. Part 2 sets out the regime relating to the defence to money claims. There is the general civil limitation defence to a money claim if the defendant can prove that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. This is known as the primary period. 
The 6-year period does not apply if the claimant has late knowledge of the claim. In the case of late knowledge it is a defence of a claim if the defendant can prove that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 3 years after the late knowledge date or if the claim is made 15 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based—namely the longstop period. This provision set out in Part 4 is designed to prevent indeterminate liability and applies to non-money claims. 
The late knowledge date is defined by clause 13 as the date on which the claimant gained knowledge or if earlier the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge of all the certain specified key facts that the claimant must know in order to make the claim. The requisite facts are set out accordingly. The primary period is 2 years and not 6 years for defamation but the late period might apply in certain circumstances. 
Earlier in the bill’s second reading I cited the 2009 Supreme Court case  
Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd 
. The issues are relevant to this particular bill and particularly relevant to a late knowledge period. According to Bell Gully it is relevant to this bill in respect of reasonable discoverability. As drafted the bill does not define knowledge nor does it specify the degree of knowledge required before the claimant is taken to know or ought reasonably to know the specified facts. I quote: “It is therefore likely that in the absence of amendments to the Bill the Supreme Court’s decision in the  
Carter Holt Harvey 
 case will influence the application of the Limitation Bill once enacted”. So I wish that the responsible Minister the Attorney-General would take a call and enlighten us on this particular issue. Thank you.
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13574] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am somewhat disappointed that the Attorney-General was not quite as excited about clause 8. Clause 8A of the Limitation Bill was another notable addition as a consequence of Mr Corry’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee which raised the issue of equitable claims. 
Of course equitable claims are not common law claims so the Limitation Act generally does not apply to them and neither does the Limitation Bill. But the position has grown in the equitable courts that they apply analogous limitation periods to equitable claims. So although the common law or the statute law relating to limitation does not directly apply to equitable claims the courts by analogy apply similar rules because they want to properly balance these interests between people having rights to pursue redress for their injuries against a duty of people to pursue their claims with alacrity once they have the knowledge that enables them to do so. 
Mr Corry submitted to the select committee. He is very learned in those matters and he might have been one of the authors of the Law Commission report. I am not positive about that though I see the Attorney-General nodding there. He made the suggestion that we clarify that through this legislation we were not stopping through new legislation the courts by analogy applying Limitation Bill provisions to equitable claims. In order to clear up that possible unintentional consequence clause 8A of the bill was introduced. It states: “Nothing in this Act prevents it from being applied by analogy to a claim in equity to which no defence prescribed by this Act applies.” I hope that I have given the Clerk enough time to decide whether my amendment is in scope. I will not say anything further for the moment.
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13572] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 That is a very kind offer but I like to have two bites of the cherry.
Finlayson Christopher: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13571] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I wonder whether there is a way through the issue raised by David Parker that would satisfy everyone. The Building Act was enacted first I think in 1991 and re-enacted in 2004. It is under review at the moment and it could well be that those arguments could be made in the context of the Building Act review so that we do not get into a debate about whether the member’s proposed amendment is within scope or whatever. It could well be an issue that is deserving of careful consideration when the Building Act review is concluded. I simply offer that not as a peace offering but as sensible way forward.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13588] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 In this third reading of the Limitation Bill it is great to see that the bill has support from all parties which is very uncommon. This bill is part of the process that this Government took over to simplify the judicial system. The Justice and Electoral Committee has dealt with more than 17 different bills since the Government took over in November 2008. Members of this Government have been working hard to make sure that New Zealand has the best judicial system. This bill is an example of the important work Parliament can do in improving the quality of legislation in order to make it more accessible and less confusing to the public. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the officials who have been providing excellent support during the hearing of this bill. It is my privilege to be part of the select committee which is led by Chester Borrows and I acknowledge the Hon David Parker and other Labour members for their contribution. I commend this bill to the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13542] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very encouraged by the fact that the biggest criticism the Opposition’s spokesperson on health has of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is that it is being referred to a select committee that will meet work hard and deliberate in a timely manner to report back to the House. I know members on the other side are a bit puffed at the pace of this Government but I am afraid that pedantry is certainly not the answer. They will just have to keep up. 
I am confused though. We are getting a really inconsistent message from members opposite. On the one hand they support the bill and say that they support every effort to get on top of the scourge that is P but on the other they decry the fact—as Ms Laban Mr O’Connor and Ms Dyson did—that some people may not be able to purchase their pseudoephedrine over the counter. They cannot have it both ways. 
I am afraid though that that is pretty typical of a party that was asleep at the wheel when P came into the New Zealand lexicon about 10 years ago. Do members know what the previous Government did? It developed an action plan. This Government is about action not action plans and the results are already apparent. I looked at the 2008/09 financial review of the New Zealand Customs Service and I was absolutely amazed to see that “the interception of illicit drugs and precursors entering New Zealand became a new priority for the Customs Service in 2009.” 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: It’s been here for a decade. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right. The problem has been here for 10 years yet it has only just become a new priority under this Government. The results have been immediate. There was a 41 percent increase in methamphetamine precursor seizures. Last year the service stopped measuring methamphetamine seizures in tablets and began measuring them in kilograms. There were 800 kilograms seized in 2009 and we are heading for a tonne seized this year. Record levels of seizures are being reported. I reject the nonsense of claims by members opposite that cuts to the Customs Service and police exist and that if they do exist they have a consequent effect on their ability to make seizures. 
As my colleague Nikki Wagner has said P is a terrible curse on this country. We are the second-highest users of P in the world. Although we are stopping importation of P a significant amount of methamphetamine precursor is sourced by over-the-counter access. It worked when that access was restricted and this bill will further restrict its use. It will improve things and I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13566] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Limitation Bill. The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace the Limitation Act 1950. As the Hon Chris Finlayson mentioned the 1950 Act is creaky and outdated. This Act is based on the English statute of 1939 and that too was repealed long ago. 
The Limitation Act 1950 has been reviewed thrice by the Law Commission—in 1988 2000 and 2007. It was recommended that this Act be replaced with a new Act. The Law Commission identified that the current law is unfair uncertain and outdated. It also identified that some of the important terms are not defined in this Act. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee under the able leadership of Chester Borrows heard submissions which were duly considered and it recommended some changes. This bill makes limitation law more accessible and up to date. This bill achieves a balance between the competing right of access to justice and the right of the defendant not to be accountable for stale claims. In conclusion I say that this bill will make the law more comprehensive and clear. Thank you.
Vote: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Insolvency Practitioners Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — First Reading 
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13554] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the Insolvency Practitioners Bill. Tonight we have heard some very interesting comments and it will be good to see this bill progress through the select committee and to discuss it. 
The bill is part of a well-rounded framework of regulation that this Government wants to put in place in the financial and business sectors. When the credit crisis struck $190 million in $100 notes was taken out of circulation out of the banking sector and was simply stored in private deposit boxes or under mattresses. That is all to do with confidence. The previous speaker the Hon Shane Jones commented that our drive for savings depends upon people’s willingness to trust the administrators of those savings schemes. I believe that the Insolvency Practitioners Bill goes well toward shoring up the lack of confidence that has existed through company failures. 
When creditors suffer loss through a company failure the last thing they want is a shonky insolvency practitioner trying to recover their interests. They do not want to go from one injury to another. This bill in its many aspects ensures that the quality and the stewardship of those practitioners are maintained at an incredibly high level. Stewardship is a good word to use in regard to this profession because people are looking after the interests of other people’s assets with skill integrity fairness and timeliness. All of those aspects are incredibly important. It is my pleasure to support this bill as it goes through the House. Thank you.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13543] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Health Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to.
Collins Judith: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13543] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police)  
on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee 
 that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2010 and that the committee have 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).  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. The amendment is to the Minister’s motion. The amendment is to omit all the words after “be referred to the Health Committee”.
Blue Jackie: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13537] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill which amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 in order to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs and remove thalidomide as a class A controlled drug to allow hazardous substances to be also scheduled as restricted substances to extend the definition of “amphetamine analogues” and to extend the controls over drug paraphernalia. 
Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are precursors of P. In the first 7 months of this year 23 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized which is four times the amount seized in the same period last year. Members should make no mistake: this is a huge business in New Zealand and it is worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. There are close associations with gangs and their clandestine operations in suburban homes and let us not forget that gangs are associated with weapons which they use to protect their operations. 
Tackling P and the drugs trade is a huge priority for the law and order team and I acknowledge the work done by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police. We have created a dedicated anti-drug Customs Service task force and we have made it easier for the police to go after gangs and to go after the proceeds of crime. That is why we are restricting access to the precursors of P which are pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. We have heard from Sir Peter Gluckman the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser that suitable alternatives to these medicines can be bought across the counter though pseudoephedrine and ephedrine can still be obtained through a prescription. 
I took some time out today and went to a conference in the Banquet Hall hosted by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It was incredibly powerful. There was a wall of photographs of people who had been murdered—young men young women and children. Many of those people I would say had been murdered when their assailant was high on P. Susan Couch was present at the conference. Her assailant William Bell was high on P; she was almost beaten to death and he unfortunately killed three innocent victims. There was a picture of Coral Burrows aged 6 who was murdered by her stepfather Steve Williams while he was high on P. 
P is a tragedy of huge proportions in this community so this bill is a step in the right direction and I commend it to the House.
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13531] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank goodness for the National Government for progressing this war against pure methamphetamine! Undoubtedly this bill is part of the five-point plan to wage that war. Pure methamphetamine adversely affects every strata of New Zealand society. It is very interesting to note a recent Business and Economic Research Ltd study which has shown that the cost of non-alcohol financially adverse effects—that is effects relating just to drugs—amount to something like $1.5 billion. 
Clearly the adverse effects emotionally and for family are just absolutely enormous. An example in our community of Pukekohe in the Hunua electorate is that over the last year or two a chemist in his 60s has been caught supplying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine over a long period of time. This man was regarded as a doyen of society—he was a churchgoer—but he was suddenly found to be heavily involved in the supply of those drugs. 
It is important to reinforce the fact that the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman has stated that there are safe and effective alternatives to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine; a variety of countries around the world have banned these products in mixtures for colds. This bill among other things classifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B drugs which carries with it very very significant penalties. As was noted by the excellent Minister Peter Dunne the presumption of supply threshold is 10 grams. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much is that? How many pills? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well that is a very interesting point. Each pill contains about 240 milligrams; the maximum prescription one can have contains about 7.2 grams so two prescriptions would amount to being over the presumption of supply threshold of 10 grams. 
I think it is absolutely right that the Attorney-General’s report has come out and stated that this bill does indeed contravene section 5 of the Bill of Rights. But he cites the Hansen case where he states that the majority in that case “concluded that the control of the supply of illegal drugs is a pressing social objective which might justify limitations on rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.” The Attorney-General states with regard to that: “Accordingly … I have concluded that the Bill’s objective is sufficiently important and significant.” 
Just to end up I say that I look forward very much to rigorous and vigorous scrutiny in the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House as a very very important part of the jigsaw in fighting the war against pure methamphetamine in New Zealand.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 December 2010 and that the committee have 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).  
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Justice and Electoral Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13526] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Legal Services Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 December 2010 and that the committee have 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). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The House has received an amendment to the Minister’s referral notice in the name of Charles Chauvel. I will put the question on the amendment first.
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services 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.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13523] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I will start my contribution with an old saying: “Ninety-eight percent of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.” But the Legal Services Bill seeks to recognise the importance of preserving access to justice in spite of that 98 percent. In fact very few lawyers sail close to the wind when representing their clients. The National Government wants to make sure that all New Zealanders have access to a high-quality legal system. The Government also wants to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent. The review undertaken by Dame Margaret Bazley in 2009 identified many challenges being faced by our legal aid system. That review also identifies that there are inadequate mechanisms to ensure quality and serious delivery of services. 
The Legal Services Bill will provide an effective legal aid system that supports the wider justice sector. It will create a system in which taxpayers can have confidence and will also provide high-quality legal service by capable professionals. The legal aid service is very vital to our most vulnerable citizens and the changes made will make proud the users and the providers. This bill shows that the Minister of Justice Simon Power has acted quickly to address the issues identified by Dame Margaret’s report. We are also confident this package of challenge will help build more public confidence that the legal aid system is providing quality service for those who need it while giving taxpayers value for money. I support this bill on its first reading.
Borrows Chester: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13513] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Vote for the amendment Chester. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I will not be voting for Charles Chauvel’s amendment to the referral motion. I think it is important in discussing his amendment to remember why this House has gone into urgency on a number of occasions recently and also to have a little bit of a look at the history. This Government has been criticised on a number of occasions for taking a long time to process legislation introduced by the previous Government only to find that the legislation—for instance the Children Young Persons and their Families Amendment Bill (No. 6) which was introduced just a couple of weeks before the House rose—was never taken anywhere during the course of the last Parliament even though the preparation had been done. 
We had another example of that this afternoon when we heard the Hon George Hawkins refer to his Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which is currently before the Social Services Committee. It was introduced in October 2007 but went nowhere right through until the election in November 2008. With the support of members opposite it had been stalled pending the process initially of the previous Government’s own bill on the sale of liquor which again that Government never processed during the course of its Parliament. That bill goes hand in hand with bills on other domestic violence matters that were not progressed during the previous Parliament either. We heard recently about the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s bill which she spoke about and asked questions about yesterday; that bill was introduced only 2 weeks before the last election yet somehow there is some huge criticism of this Government. 
The other reason this Government has taken urgency on a number of occasions over the term of this Parliament is that on a number of members’ days when members opposite have had member’s bills coming up they have postponed them meaning that if urgency was not called we would have “pulled the pin” at 5 o’clock and knocked off for the rest of the night because those are the conventions of this House. If people on the opposite side of the House wanted to work as hard as they want the public to think they are working then they would maintain the stance they took by putting in the bids they did for those member’s bills. The reason we are voting against Mr Chauvel’s amendment is that we want to see these matters progressed through the House in a timely manner and not being held up by members opposite mucking around with the system.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third 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 third time.
Bridges Simon: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13564] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have been told that my friend Hone Harawira was going to take a call which I must admit surprised me. But I come back to say what a great committee the Justice and Electoral Committee is. It has a fantastic chair in Chester Borrows who does a great job as chair. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Lovely guy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: His deputy chair Lynne Pillay is not bad as well come to think of it. 
I pay tribute to Lynne Pillay. Members saw her during her speech tonight. They saw the cool calm academic rigour that she brought to the Limitation Bill. She was a sucker for punishment in the committee on this bill with the way that she drilled down into the detail and kept challenging us time and time again to get into the detail of the Limitation Bill. I take my hat off to Lynne Pillay for her work on the Limitation Bill. 
It is great to be here tonight speaking on this bill. Despite my five o’clock shadow now at a couple of minutes to 10 I am nevertheless really switched on to this bill and the important matters of policy and principle that we are dealing with. I agree with Lynne Pillay. This bill is about access to justice and that is why we are here tonight. 
As the Hon Chris Finlayson said we are here tonight to do a noble thing. We are simplifying the 1950 Limitation Act and we are removing injustice. In the past it could well have been the case that some people discovered their claims after the expiration of the limitation period. Again to come back to that great learned expositor of the law Lynne Pillay that is an access to justice issue. That is not to say that we are not balancing justice issues or the right of a putative plaintiff to bring their case on the one hand and the right of a defendant to finality on the other side. There are those balancing of interests. 
Here we are just after 10 p.m. on Wednesday night doing a noble thing for this country. We are debating important policies and principles. I could talk a lot more about this bill but I say that it is a great bill and I am proud to be part of a Government that is bringing it forward and changing the rules in relation to limitation periods.