edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18952. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena no tatou. I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui even though we are just starting to hook into the debate and they are really just for clarification. 
I note that the preamble refers to 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest which I suppose implies that Ngati Rangitihi who were a part of the collective come under the 13.6 percent of the beneficial interest that has been tagged for remaining beneficiaries. I want to check with the Minister whether that is the case even though Ngati Rangitihi are not named. I know that this issue crosses over into Part 1 and into the schedules as well in terms of named iwi but I want to check on the issues around Ngati Rangitihi and where their part might be in terms of that matter. 
Could the Minister also give us some information about whether any progress was made at the mandate hui held over the weekend? Although I have not had submissions from Ngati Rangitihi or any of the factions I want to ensure that we can say that Ngati Rangitihi’s interests have been protected and I want to know whether there are any implications—I think I know what those implications are anyway—if they do not meet the 24 December deadline. Perhaps the Minister could give us some outlines around that matter. 
My main interest in the preamble is recital (4)—namely the 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest etc. I seek clarification specifically about the Ngati Rangitihi issue. I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some feedback. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There is a certain air of unreality in going straight from a second reading to debating the preamble and there is a danger that in this air of unreality there will be unnecessary repetition. Of course the Committee does not want to hear unnecessary repetition from me. I must confess that my primary interest in the bill and the area I want to speak on is schedule 2 which is the tikanga-based resolution process for the allocation of land so I will be reasonably brief in speaking about the preamble. 
I simply say that I am particularly interested in recital (4) which talks about the way in which the allocation is to occur. It refers to the terms of the deed of trust. As we heard last night from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations almost 86.5 percent of the beneficial interest in the forests is to be held for the collective “and the individual beneficial entitlement of each member of that Collective is to be determined by reference to the allocation process that has been agreed amongst those members and is set out in this Act.” That is a reference first to schedule 3 which sets out the percentages for allocation of rental proceeds. I must say that I think those percentages have been prepared to an admirable level. For example Tuhoe are entitled to 27.2987 percent of the total and how that was worked out I do not know. 
More particularly I will focus on schedule 2 which deals with the way in which the allocation process is to occur. As we can see from that schedule which I will look at in far greater detail when we get to it there are essentially three stages. I am particularly interested in stage 3 and the effect of that type of adjudication process on the ability of courts to interfere in any decision that may be reached. 
The preamble is a quite straightforward part of the bill. It sets out the background and it sets out that the Crown and the collective agreed to negotiate in good faith have established a framework and have established the percentages and a means by which each individual member of the collective is to be allocated a particular portion. I think that is all I need to say about the preamble; we must move on and get to the real heart of the bill.
Locke Keith: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. It has been interesting to hear the contributions so far about the complexities of the process about the submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee and about how to resolve the unresolved issues. The Green Party will be supporting this bill.
Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19002. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena tatou Mr Assistant Speaker. In inverse proportion to the speech given by the last speaker this speech will be short and will point out that in actual fact this simple legal modification closes a gap brought about by an unwise decision flowing from the Environment Court.  
Hon David Carter 
: No it didn’t make a mistake.  
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes and the Tasman District Council etc. will enjoy a higher level of clarity. I say the notion that investors are leaving in droves from the industry is absolute rot. I am glad to hear that all members of the Primary Production Committee supported this improvement. They realise that from time to time members of the judiciary do come up with decisions that are beyond the purview of the original legislators when they are passing legislation. It is not unusual for that to happen.  
I am looking forward to the fact that speaking in the House today from the Maori Party is Hone Harawira who I have no doubt will support this bill. Had he been here he would have supported Winston Peters. Had he stayed on the Privileges Committee he would have supported Winston Peters unlike the wittering we heard from Te Ururoa Flavell who fulfilled that great Maori proverb: “Kei runga te korero kei raro te rahurahu.”—there is wittering upstairs; noises of a different nature are being emitted downstairs. Those members will be punished for that type of rauhanga which is what we in the Ngapuhi call it. However it will be good to hear Hone Harawira speak shortly and support this bill which will drive aquaculture forward. That will make a small step towards atoning for the very unwise short-sighted decision made by Mr Flavell to cuddle up to John Key. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I will come back to the bill Mr Assistant Speaker. I am just pointing out that that Maori member will stand to support this bill because it is good for our Maori claims process. That other Maori member did not stand with another Maori who deserved to be given a fair go. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Goudie Sandra: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 How can we have a code of conduct when we are meant to be negotiating agreements to create these walkways and the agreement could be quite contrary to what is in the code of conduct? How on earth can we have a code of conduct that will apply generally to all these walkways when the negotiated agreements between adjacent landowners or private property owners could have matters quite contrary to whatever we have in the code of conduct? The whole thing is a load of nonsense.  
There will be negotiated agreements of parameters of the conditions that will be set on a walkway and when we are talking about cost there certainly is a cost to the commission which will be a Crown entity. There certainly is a cost to the establishment of walkways because the very nature of a walkway is that people are able to walk on it and most of the terrain will have to be level so that they can walk on it. Will that be accessible to people with disabilities? Will they be able to use wheelchairs on it? People with a disability need to be able to use a wheelchair—that is their idea of being able to have access—on those walkways. The cost of establishing a walkway and establishing the right sort of terrain to walk on will be an additional cost.  
This code of conduct will go on ad infinitum just as John Carter said. We only have to look at Part 2.  
Martin Gallagher 
: Here’s Part 2. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Has the member read it? 
Martin Gallagher 
: Absolutely. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Then he will be able to see for himself quite clearly. When I look at clause 10(1)(e) I see that it talks about the commission facilitating resolution of disputes processes. 
Debate interrupted.
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker informs me that I have 1 minute and 30 seconds remaining to speak on the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I note that I started speaking last night at 9.52 p.m. so strictly speaking I should have 2 minutes but I will not quibble with the Chair because that would be inappropriate. 
All I want to do in closing is address the question of public access. It has been comprehensively dealt with in the bill. It is not an issue between the parties. The deed of settlement requires the Crown to grant public access easements over the forests prior to the settlement date and we can deal with that issue in the Committee stage. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the issue and they are substantially the same as the clauses that the Committee of the whole House debated last night in the context of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill; I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 250 which brought into that bill clauses 130A and 130B. The intent is the same even if there are minor differences in wording. 
With those closing comments I believe that all the issues have been considered and that there is no impediment to the bill proceeding through all its stages as quickly as possible.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. We will have the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) now and then we will proceed to the first reading of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If time allows we will then go to the first reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill the continuation of the Committee stage of the Walking Access Bill and then sometime early tomorrow morning we will proceed to the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. Then we will proceed to the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and if time allows before valedictories the introduction and first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. We will deal with the settlement bills in sequence at the one time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So we will move to Government order of the day No. 6 now.
Tremain Chris: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I want to clarify that. So what we are looking to do is to take the next two items on the Order Paper and move them forward to Thursday? Is that correct?
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I might add for the member’s benefit that clauses 1 and 2 are taken together but there will be separate votes. So the member can debate clause 1 and 2 but there are separate votes.
Barnett Tim: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barnett Tim: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19065. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that it was agreed. I gave this indication and at the time nobody dissented from that course being followed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussion I have had and for technical reasons to enable the bill we are dealing with at the moment the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) to be assented to by 1 October 2008 I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 16 the second reading of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill to be taken at the conclusion of the third reading of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Dr Cullen has sought leave to change the order of business slightly. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none it is agreed to.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 7 and 8 which are the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill to be taken after the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill on Thursday morning. I indicated at the Business Committee on Tuesday afternoon that this would likely be the case if we had reached this point on the Order Paper by this stage. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I want to clarify that. So what we are looking to do is to take the next two items on the Order Paper and move them forward to Thursday? Is that correct? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. We will have the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) now and then we will proceed to the first reading of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If time allows we will then go to the first reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill the continuation of the Committee stage of the Walking Access Bill and then sometime early tomorrow morning we will proceed to the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. Then we will proceed to the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and if time allows before valedictories the introduction and first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. We will deal with the settlement bills in sequence at the one time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So we will move to Government order of the day No. 6 now. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have one other point for clarification. This was agreed at the Business Committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that it was agreed. I gave this indication and at the time nobody dissented from that course being followed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10897] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he have confidence in the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Acting Minister for the Environment 
: Yes but of course we are awaiting the outcome of the current inquiry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen comments from the Prime Minister over the last 2 weeks questioning the competence of the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and does he agree with those comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of comments made by the Prime Minister about Mr Logan in relation to certain comments that he did not pass on to Mr Rennie and that would have been helpful in the circumstances of the events of 2 weeks ago. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister believe are the reasons why the chief executive of his ministry is subject to an investigation under the State Sector Act by the State Services Commissioner and now by an alternative and independent investigator Mr Don Hunn? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There were clearly issues around the employment of a person in the ministry and statements were made by the Acting State Services Commissioner that were based on incomplete information. That information was available to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and had in fact been made available to the State Services Commissioner earlier. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the inquiry confirms what is publicly known and what has in fact been stated several times by the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment—namely that he did not pass the information on—will the Minister maintain his confidence in that chief executive? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a matter the Minister will have to consider at the time that any such report is delivered taking account of any of the circumstances in that report. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Acting Minister who has recently taken over the portfolio discussed with the chief executive any progress on the Ministry for the Environment register of personal interests and how it will be administered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information on that but I would be very surprised if anything has been happening in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister not know whether the Ministry for the Environment is going to proceed with its register of interests given the high level of interest in that across the whole public sector and by the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because I am answering on behalf of the Minister I have not been briefed on that supplementary question which is about the seventh one.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
[Volume:641;Page:10893] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by the Rt Hon Michael Howard QC is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
Visitors — United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
[Volume:641;Page:10893] 
Wednesday 8 August 2007 
 Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by the Rt Hon Michael Howard QC is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10883] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding is that I can make a further request by leave for my bill to be introduced and set down for a first reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the member is able to seek leave again. The member wishes to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10883] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to comment adversely on the bill but I thought this was something the House had considered earlier in the day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The matter had actually been considered earlier in the day and I understand that leave had been denied.
Guy Nathan: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10883] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you asking the member to seek leave again or not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No she has already sought leave and now it is up to the House to decide whether it accepts. I am asking the House whether leave has been given. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bradford Sue: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10868] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will take a very brief call just to say we are pleased also to be supporting the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is great that the Government has seen its way clear to update the 1946 Act after 61 years. 
We are also pleased to see that a significant part of this upgrading involves a new Maori name for the board and other provisions to recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. This is particularly important because so many of us particularly of course tangata whenua are keen to rediscover acknowledge and rename places with the names with which they were originally blessed. 
Although this is clearly not the most significant legislation to come before this House in 2007 the board does carry out absolutely necessary functions and we support its emergence in a new 21st century incarnation.
Hodgson Pete: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10850] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building and Construction 
: I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2007 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).
Auchinvole Chris: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10880] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Are we surprised on this side of the Chamber? Are we surprised to find that this legislation now needs a change of date? This is from a Government that seems to be pushing legislation into the House as if there were no real requirement to get it right the first time. We have Supplementary Order Papers 129 and 132 and a further Supplementary Order Paper as we have already heard from other speakers. Why were these things not put right in the first instance? Instead we are finding ourselves doing repair jobs on things that should never have been wrong in the first place. 
I think that this is an indication of a Government in a difficult spot. The New Zealand public must be so pleased that they at least have a sense of security they can draw from the quality of service they get from the National Party benches. It is no wonder that all members on this side of the Chamber are regularly stopped in the street by passers-by who identify them as a National Party politicians and wish them well in the next election. It is a frequent event. Thank goodness for the likes of my colleague Mr Chris Finlayson the shadow Attorney-General who can apply not only his knowledge of the law but also his knowledge of the Church calendar to proposing an appropriate future date for this legislation: 2 November All Souls’ Day—a good choice. 
This legislation was introduced in 1837; it was originally brought in then. I recall speaking in this debate before and I recall saying then that I was pleased to be a layperson involved in a debate on a legal matter—a debate designed to simplify the process to make legal terms into more common speech. I think it is important that laypeople understand these matters. Well here I am in this debate finding that even the finest legal minds in the Chamber—and one could say they are all on this side—are unable to keep up with something that changes its date not once not twice but three times. I guess it is tied up with the way this Government is caught up with the past rather than the future—let alone the present. 
Let us dwell on that just for a moment. One has to listen only to the responses at question time in the House. I say “responses” because there is no way that the mealy-mouthed mumblings of mediocre Ministers could be described as answers. The responses to the questions inevitably draw the Ministers back to the 1990s because that is how they answer almost every question that is put to them. Oh the happy time when they were in Opposition—that is where they were comfortable that is where they were confident and that is where they will go back to. But let us hope that they get this sort of bill correct before they go.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10826] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Earlier I sought leave to table a bill and I believe that you thought I was seeking leave to table a document. I would now like to seek the leave of the House to table my Overseas Investment (Restrictions on Foreign Ownership) Bill and to have it set down for first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the leave to introduce or to table? Would the member please be clear. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is to introduce. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is to introduce the bill as opposed to just table it? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: That is right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to introduce that bill. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Clark Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clark Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10821] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek to correct an answer to an earlier question under Standing Order 350. In answer to an earlier question I said I became aware of the “free and frank” comments of the former Minister for the Environment last Wednesday. It was in fact two Wednesdays ago which only proves that time flies when one is having fun.
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10881] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to reconsider Part 1 for the purposes of considering the amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be adopted. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10850] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Sharples Pita: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10830] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe tena tatou katoa. I te mutunga kua kitea kare he tangata kei a ratou nga tohu nga mohiotanga hoki ki nga tikanga o tena o tena o nga turoro me o ratau tono kakari. I tera hepetema i panuitia e  
Te Rau Hinengaro 
 tetahi rangahau i ki ahakoa te taumaha o te mate i roto i te Maori me te Pasifika kahore e riro i enei hunga nga ratonga oranga hinengaro kua whakaritea mo te katoa. E te Kaihautu koia nei nga take nui kia ora ai to tatou iwi. Tapiri atu ki enei take ko etahi pera i te ahua o te kaikiri o te whakahawea me era atu o nga take ka taka mai hei whakawehe i te iti me te rahi. 
E ngakaunui ana matou ki te komihana me ona tangata. Nga mihi ki a Mary O’Regan mo tona arahi i te komihana mo nga tau neke atu i te 20 a kua rihaina i te mutunga o tenei wiki. Nga mihi ki a ia. 
Ka tika hoki kia mihi atu ki era kaikomihana e rua ara te tiamana a Ruth Harrison me Ray Watson o Kai Tahu Te Ati Awa hoki. Ma raua e tirotiro ma raua e whakamohio i te mea ma raua tatou e whakatupato mo te haerenga mai o etahi kumi ihuroa. Na ko ta matou he whakaatu i nga wahanga katoa o tenei pire he tono kia tu pakari te kaupapa tirotiro.  
Kua mutu ake nei kai te Kaihautu tena koe. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you and to all of us. The situation in real terms is that there simply are not enough qualified culturally appropriate workers in health to meet the urgent demand. The mental health survey released last September Te Rau Hinengaro revealed that despite a higher prevalence of disorder Pasifika groups and Maori are less likely to access mental health services than other population groups. These issues are pivotal to the health and wellbeing of so many of our peoples. Associated with these issues are a whole range of other factors: the impact of institutional racism discrimination and other factors that impact on such disparities.  
We have great confidence in the commission and its people. We particularly acknowledge the leadership that Mary O’Regan has demonstrated for over 20 years and wish her well in her resignation from the commission at the end of this week.  
 It is fitting also to acknowledge the other two commissioners Ruth Harrison as chairperson and Ray Watson of Kai Tahu and Te Atiawa. Both possess wide leadership experience and sector expertise in the mental health sector. We need them to monitor we need them to report we need them to warn us of any approaching crocodiles. And we will take up every opportunity at the committee stage of this bill to ensure their strong surveillance stand is protected. 
I end here Mr Deputy Speaker; thank you. 
]
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10880] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will just take a very short call. There was one item of significance in those eminent dissertations—those fine speeches dealing with the date change that have dragged this out for some time. I often wonder when listening to those speeches whether members would prefer us not to correct things—and I exclude Mr Finlayson from this because I acknowledge some very relevant points of his throughout the debates on the bill. I thank him for his biblical history which reminded me a little bit of my Sunday school lessons that I am rusty on. I appreciate that. But sometimes when listening to the speeches of Opposition members I wonder whether they would prefer us not to correct these things and to send the bill out as it is. 
Ms Wilkinson raised one point when she alluded to the meaning of the word “signed”. I am not a lawyer and she is but I will make this point. She somehow felt there was danger because the word “signed” had not really been defined and she was not sure whether this would cause uncertainty. I am advised that the same word the word “signed” is used in the current legislation and that it is well understood. I am also advised as a layman and not as a lawyer that there is legal interpretation going back to 1837. I would argue—and my officials have advised me of this—that there is sufficient legal interpretation on the books in case law to determine if one puts a squiggle across a circle or other symbol that the courts would interpret it as they have done in case law and precedent since 1837. I think that that creates a large amount of certainty—around 170 years of it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10(2) to add paragraph (c) be agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10826] 
12.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the security of funding for health services in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have seen two reports and both are sobering. The first is from Tony Ryall National’s health spokesperson who when asked to commit to this Labour-led Government’s level of investment in health was unable to do so. That did not sound encouraging but the second report is worse. It is from National’s leader John Key who said explicitly on Saturday that National’s expenditure on health would be at a lower rate than Labour’s. It looks as though National is back to its old tricks of promising the moon on a sixpence. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In the case of primary health care my answer is no and yes. The National Party still needs to clarify its position on low doctors’ fees and low prescription charges. It is on record as both supporting them and opposing them. National has had nearly 8 years in Opposition but still has no health policy.
Bradford Sue: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10843] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am taking just a brief call this afternoon to confirm that the Green Party will be supporting this bill pending any amendments that may become desirable as a result of public submissions and consideration during the select committee process. We can see that this bill is a genuine effort by the Government to respond to problems and issues that have arisen in the building sector since the passage of the Building Act into law in 2004. As one of the members who have now sat through the consideration of two weathertight homes amendment bills I cannot help but offer support to any measures that strengthen the security homeowners may want to feel around work that is being done to rectify the damage to leaky homes. 
I also understand that the Government has made considerable effort to consult key organisations within the building industry and to consult local government to ensure that these amendments do genuinely address the problems and realities of the construction sector. Now if that has not happened I am sure as somebody who is on the select committee that we will be the first to hear about it during the submission process. 
I find it considerably ironic that Dr Nick Smith from the National Party should be critical of the Government over this bill in relation to arguments about housing affordability. It was under National in the 1990s that the leaky home crisis flourished as relaxed regulations and inspection led to the situation we face today. Many homeowners are still suffering the horrendous consequences of that situation which in a very tiny way this very small bill tries to address. 
The Green Party supports the Government’s desire to get this bill through the House with as much speed as is practicable as long as interested parties do have a fair chance to submit on its detail. Accordingly we commend the bill to the House.
Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
Points of Order — Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10883] 
Points of Order 
Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill—Introduction  and First Reading 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill in my name to be introduced and set down for its first reading. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to comment adversely on the bill but I thought this was something the House had considered earlier in the day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The matter had actually been considered earlier in the day and I understand that leave had been denied. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding is that I can make a further request by leave for my bill to be introduced and set down for a first reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the member is able to seek leave again. The member wishes to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you asking the member to seek leave again or not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No she has already sought leave and now it is up to the House to decide whether it accepts. I am asking the House whether leave has been given. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10814] 
4.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Has she received any further recent reports regarding progress on the joint therapeutic products legislation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. Since last Wednesday I have seen a number of reports. Today I want to comment on four of them. These reports are from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Key on being asked whether he would support a compromise two-tier system said he would and he could. Then later he said he could not and would not. Later still he said he could not because he would not. Finally he said he did not because he had not. He reminded me of that character in the Dr Seuss story  
Green Eggs and Ham 
 who could have would have and should have. If members of this House are confused I have to tell them that they are nowhere nearly as confused as the Leader of the Opposition is. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on a two-tier system for complementary medicines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have read a number of comments particularly from some very good journalists in New Zealand. For example Audrey Young of the  
New Zealand Herald  
strongly asserts that the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that if such a proposal were put in front of him he would sign it. I have also read the comments of Colin James in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 who said Mr Key has “stayed on the low ground in points-scoring politics got tongue-tied in word-fights with the Herald—and dragged the Australian High Commissioner into domestic politics a seriously un-prime-ministerial act.” When Mr Key finally makes up his mind I suggest he gives us a call. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report from the esteemed journalist whom the Minister was quoting which says that it now appears that Annette King’s two-tier scheme was not the same as Winston Peters’ two-tier scheme and maybe she would like to tell us where the confusion comes from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10881] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10881] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10(4) to insert paragraph (ca) be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10830] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I wish to advise the House under Standing Order 117(2) that when the second reading debate on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill was last debated on 24 July 2007 it was interrupted and the honourable member Hone Harawira had 2 minutes speaking time remaining if he so wished. I have been advised that Dr Sharples will be completing the speech today under this Standing Order which states: “An individual speaking time may be shared between two members of the same party or between two members of different parties if both parties agree.”
Mark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10891] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to put on the record of the House the fact that New Zealand First is pleased to support the passage of the Major Events Management Bill although I cannot help but notice a couple of ironies that really do need to be mentioned. Who would have thought that sport would bring sense to the National Party curb its rabid desire for free markets and actually have it impeding entrepreneurial ventures? Who would have thought the National Party would be moving to curb and block entrepreneurship? Who would have thought the Labour Party would now be condemning the 1981 pitch invasions during the Springbok Tour of New Zealand? Who would have thought that both those two grand old parties which have ruled this nation alternately—hand in hand on occasion—would do the flip-flop of all flop-flips? Here we are talking about banning pitch invasions yet so many Labour members of this Government proudly carry their badge as pitch invaders in the 1980s. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.