edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jones Shane: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12471] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. I stand to support the other speakers this afternoon and to endorse the content and direction of this bill. I look forward to the bill coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Of course that committee met today and we noted the absence—sadly really for the smooth proceedings and good humour of the committee—of Dr Lockwood Smith although we did celebrate the absence of Mr Foss so it is a case of swings and roundabouts. 
I will come very briefly to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. I have no doubt that when the bill arrives at the select committee my colleagues will pay particular attention to ensuring that any changes we make meet the threshold of ongoing fiduciary responsibility. This is not the first member’s bill that the committee has dealt with in the short time I have been a parliamentarian and a number of submitters raised the issue of the importance of parliamentarians paying attention to corporate restructuring in the context of fiduciary responsibilities. What is being promoted here is not unusual and the device strikes at the heart as to why Parliaments have inherent sovereignty and why in New Zealand one Parliament cannot bind another. What this Parliament has been asked to do is to effect a modest restructuring change that will leave in law the ability for the Governor-General to pass by regulation a host of other changes when they are needed and it will not be required for such a bill to come back to the House. 
The trust plays an important role in the corporate infrastructure of the nation. I need not outline or repeat what other parliamentarians have had to say this afternoon other than to say that the bill will be in capable hands when it falls to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to hearing what submitters might have to say and we will pay particular attention to ensure that none of these changes weaken administrators or cause them to overlook their ongoing responsibilities of a fiduciary nature. I look forward to receiving the bill as chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12469] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a couple of seconds. New Zealand First supports the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we trust that the debate there will bring out any shortcomings if there are any. As usual our interests are that New Zealanders are protected as much as they can be alongside our Australian neighbours and that we do not end up in a situation where people in this country are playing second fiddle to Australians. We will look to ensure that that is not the case in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. So New Zealand First obviously supports the bill going to the select committee and it looks forward to the debate.
Turner Judy: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12464] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take just a very brief call in support of the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. We are very thrilled to see the bill progressed so speedily. I congratulate the Minister Winnie Laban on the work she has done on this. 
I have to say that when I was flicking through the commentary on this bill it took me back to a circumstance that I myself was involved in. I lived all my childhood on a farm just out of Raglan and directly over the road from our farm was a hill that had once housed a country church which I have some very very early memories of attending. The church was demolished with a memorial left in place. My paternal grandparents are buried in the cemetery there and my father as a local farmer was the sexton appointed by the local district council years and years ago. The only plans for this cemetery were ones that we found in the mess of my father’s office after he himself died and had requested to be buried there. We scrambled up to the top of this hill with this map. We had to try to figure out which way around the map went because typical of country gravesites there were lots of unmarked graves and because dad did not think to leave us any suggestion as to where there might be a spare plot for him. 
When one visits these places one finds that the rich sense of history is just amazing. My parents had been active members of that community. My grandparents had been farming in the area and beyond and there were family names that dated back all around the district. It was just absolutely amazing in the middle of our own personal sadness to wander through this cemetery and remember names that I had heard my parents speak of for years and years and see the family connections. 
I understand the value of cemeteries like the one we are dealing with today. They are rich in history and I am thrilled to see the way that the families involved—such as the Stace family—and those in the authority who have sought to find some resolution to this situation have gone about this. We are very happy to support the third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Donnelly Brian: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12463] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I just want to bow to the greater recollection of history—particularly about the relationship between Te Rangihaeata and Te Rauparaha—that Tariana Turia has than myself. She was correct; Te Rangihaeata was of course the nephew of Te Rauparaha. 
When I mentioned a hope that the council would hear the voices in the House in terms of the maintenance of both the heritages of the area there was no hint in that statement that the council does not and will not adhere to that. Rather I was trying to say that what we have here is in fact a model that should be picked up on around the rest of our country in terms of the way things should be done. 
Chris Finlayson has said that even politicians may be interested in flowers. Actually some former rugby league players in the House are interested in flowers too and I am quite happy to invite the Pauatahanui rose group to come up to Ngunguru and look after my ones because in Northland they take a fair bit of looking after. The Pauatahanui Burial Ground must be a wonderful site—and certainly I have heard of it—and a lot of that has come about because of the work the rose group has put in over many many decades. 
I want also to congratulate the Pauatahanui Residents Association on its celebration of history. It recognises the importance that history has to us as human beings and that it is there for us to be able to see feel touch and smell rather than just something within dry textbooks. I think that is incredibly important and as I say and as Tariana Turia has said the same applies to the history of Ngati Toa. It is of great importance to them that the site is maintained in such a way that people can actually get a sense of history happening. 
I congratulate Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. Obviously she has put in an enormous amount of work to get this bill through but also the fact that it has gone through with the full support of the House is due to the manner in which she goes about things. As Chris Finlayson said often that non-adversarial inclusive way has better outcomes and enables goals to be achieved somewhat better than the adversarial culture that is in fact the Westminster culture and is still very very much a part of this House. I think we should move away from that as much as we possibly can particularly given we are now in a world where what we do in this House is projected into the households of our families and our young people etc. Again I congratulate Winnie Laban; she has obviously done a marvellous job. 
Without further ado I say New Zealand First is very very pleased to be able to support this legislation in its third reading.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12461] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill be now read a third time 
. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in getting the bill to this point. I wish to acknowledge and thank the Stace family for their support of this bill as a way of dealing with management issues relating to the Pauatahanui Burial Ground and of ensuring it is looked after in perpetuity. 
I wish also to acknowledge Ngati Toa rangatira and to thank them sincerely for their support of this bill for their assistance to the Porirua City Council and for supplying some of the early history of the site. I wish to acknowledge the strong history that Maori share in the burial ground and in the wider Pauatahanui area. I hope this bill and the debate on it in this House have adequately reflected that history and recognised the many local Maori who fought and died in skirmishes in the area to protect their land their whanau and their livelihood. 
I wish to thank the Porirua City Council and particularly Mr Chris Linnell who should be commended for his work over the years to get the bill to this point. I note that the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee made special mention of the Porirua City Council and commended it for its thorough preparation of the bill and its wonderful relationship with the Pauatahanui Residents Association and Ngati Toa. 
I want also to acknowledge especially the hard-working volunteers—the wonderful women and men of the Pauatahanui Residents Association and other volunteers who tend the beautiful roses as well—for their support of this bill for their positive submissions and for their strong commitment to ensure the burial ground is properly looked after just as they have done for many decades. Similarly I especially thank the local Pauatahanui rose group which has cared for the beautiful roses in the grounds which date back over 150 years to the time when the first cuttings were brought there by early settlers. 
I also acknowledge my colleague Chris Finlayson of the National Party who has also worked with me on this bill. 
Finally I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support of this bill their thoughtful contributions to the debate and their support for the remaining stages to proceed today. This bill is the first piece of legislation for which I have been responsible and it has been an honour and a humbling experience to acknowledge the wonderful history of New Zealand for the sake of past present and future generations of Pauatahanui and to support this legislation. It has been a pleasure not only to have this bill proceed in such a timely manner but also to have all my parliamentary colleagues and members of Parliament vote in support of the bill. And also I thank the submitters for all the submissions that went to the select committee in favour of the bill.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12461] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to respond to my colleagues Mark Blumsky and the Hon Brian Donnelly and to say that the Porirua City Council—and it has a representative here sitting upstairs with the Pauatahanui Residents Association—is hugely committed to the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. The council has committed a lot of resources and time together with the Pauatahanui Residents Association to make this bill a reality. Early this afternoon the Mayor of Porirua Jenny Brash called me to further endorse the council’s support for this good work. What is also heartening is that the council has a process whereby it is working in partnership with Ngati Toa Rangatira as well as with the Pauatahanui Residents’ Association. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Donnelly Brian: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12461] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Following up on the previous contribution I would like to take just a brief call on the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. I hope that the council will reflect upon the sentiments that have been expressed in the House here tonight. Some have been expressed on the importance and beauty of the burial ground in terms of recounting our Pakeha history in this country. I think the contribution by the member from the Maori Party Tariana Turia also showed that there is a shared history on this particular site that we need to not forget. It is important that we remember that shared history. It is important in different ways to what we might call both partners of the Treaty. 
We have up in Northland in Ruapekapeka a very very important site historically and culturally. In fact it can be connected historically with the trench warfare of World War I. It is where something happened in little old Northland that actually impacted back then. There have been times when I have been to the site and I have seen that it has not been well cared for. Part of the reason it has not been well cared for is that the local tangata whenua are concerned that the spirits of their tipuna will be trampled over so they want it somewhat left. But there has also been a neglect by the council in terms of doing what has occurred here. It came through so well in Tariana Turia’s speech that people were able to sit down talk put their different perspectives on a piece of land and respect those different perspectives. 
Very very important messages are coming through this House on what we might call a very simple bill. I hope that those who have responsibility as a result of this bill for continued maintenance of the burial ground hear the voices from both sides in this particular case. Thank you Mr Chair.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12439] 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that Mr David Henderson or “Hendo” is “one of the biggest and nastiest tax evaders in this country … who ran the sex industry in Christchurch and avoided tax thereon” and has he any evidence to support his claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Mr Henderson has exercised his right to make a formal response to this House and I have no further comment to make on the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: How then can Dave Henderson ever get fair treatment from the Inland Revenue Department when the Deputy Prime Minister has already declared him guilty of criminal tax evasion and he has never even been charged or had any evidence produced against him and why is the Deputy Prime Minister not big enough to apologise and say that he got it wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the Tax Administration Act of course the Inland Revenue Department must not take any instructions from Ministers on such matters at all. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not find it richly ironic that the taxpayer through the Film Commission has put $1.9 million into a movie  
We’re Here to Help 
 showing that the Inland Revenue Department unfairly victimised Mr Dave Henderson—a victimisation that continues to this day because of the wild allegations that were made by the Deputy Prime Minister under privilege and that to this day have not been retracted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that under the Tax Administration Act the Inland Revenue Department must act independently and cannot be directed. The fact that the Film Commission has helped fund a film shows what a democracy this is. But I would like to quote to the member from the blurb for the film: “This film does not purport to be an accurate account of the events involving Mr Henderson and the IRD.”
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12431] 
6.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports of community initiatives that have helped in the fight against obesity and contributed to better health outcomes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. Last week the Mangere Healthy Kai initiative won the supreme Health Innovation Award. Shopkeepers in Mangere have got together to promote and improve sales of healthy food and to raise awareness for adopting healthy lifestyles. It works. The good people of Mangere have taken to sushi filled roll sales have doubled banana sales have trebled and so on. We should congratulate all those involved. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of initiatives that will not contribute to better health outcomes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I have too. The National Party’s secret plan to let the market set the price for seeing a doctor would drive many people away from getting health advice. John Key and his friends think it is OK for something like health to be a market commodity. This is a little at odds with ordinary Kiwis who are now going to see their general practitioners more often because it is half the price it used to be. It is also at odds with community initiatives like the Mangere Healthy Kai one which relies on partnership and goodwill rather more than on venal motives. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that valuable though community initiatives like the one he mentioned are they will not be sufficient as long as we have an environment in which unhealthy food is far more readily available is often cheaper and is far more heavily promoted than healthy food and that we will not change that environment without putting controls over the marketing of unhealthy foods to children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Certainly the marketing of food for children is part of the thinking within the original Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy and I notice that it is also part of the thinking of the report into obesity that has just come from the Health Committee which the member who asked the question chairs. So yes this issue runs across the whole of society and it will require multiple areas of endeavour to make progress on it. On the other hand where a small successful initiative has done so well I think we should applaud it and give it some congratulations.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:12505] 
Thursday 18 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House progress will be made on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill the Oaths Modernisation Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. The third reading of the Income Tax Bill will be the last item of business on Thursday with the intention being that the House should rise at 5 p.m. so that members may attend the farewell function for the Clerk of the House David McGee. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was listening closely to the Leader of the House and he did not mention the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which was going to be discussed this week. I wonder whether it is going to be discussed next week or is the Government a bit worried about the public reaction against that bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is not media commentary that determines the Government’s business but the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are there any further comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House on Thursday 25 October to be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12202] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will give a relevant second reading speech about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and simply say as the Minister Mark Burton has said the bill follows on from a report prepared by the Law Commission entitled  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. The Minister was quite right to say the issue came to a head relatively quickly at the beginning of the year when some of the minor parties went to the Government and said that sedition should be removed as an offence. Whether those parties were anticipating the imminent passage of the Electoral Finance Bill I do not know. In any event there was unanimity in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the law of sedition ought to be reformed and that this legislation ought to be supported. National supports the bill. 
The select committee received a number of submissions on the bill. In my opinion there were disappointingly few submissions. In fact only two submissions were opposed to the bill; submissions were primarily in favour of it. We had some very good submissions that made the point very clearly as the Minister has said that this is a crime that has done its time. 
Debate interrupted.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12172] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 In light of the time and the fact that I thought the next call belonged to the Maori Party—and I apologise to Mr Fairbrother—I seek leave of the House to suspend business until after the dinner break. I would also like to pay tribute to the whanau of Byron Solomon and under the circumstances I seek leave of the House for that to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none—and it is 6 o’clock. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
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. 
Bill read a third time.
Turner Judy: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12150] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call on the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This bill begins the process of phasing in a risk management approach to New Zealand water supplies to ensure that the current one-third of the population who either do not have a water supply that is compliant to the voluntary scheme that exists at present or for whom we have no idea as to whether their water supply meets acceptable standards will have good quality water supplies. 
The costs of implementation and compliance have been held up as a concern particularly for local government agencies. United Future believes that both central government and local government need to ensure that water quality is never neglected as a funding priority. On an issue that is as basic to human needs as water quality we contend that where humans are reliant on a water source human standards of excellence should apply and in relation to water quality rural communities should not be the poor cousins of their urban counterparts. 
 I agree with the New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart who reflected that we do not have to travel very far offshore to experience living in a community where people have to be to vigilant all the time about the water they consume—places where we do not allow ice to be put in our drinks and where we are very careful about where the water we drink comes from. 
However United Future is very pleased that the Health Committee did not dismiss local government’s concerns about possible rate hikes that changes have been made and that those changes are considered to be real solutions. We commend the select committee for the work it has done. United Future is not represented on the Health Committee and we are very interested to hear from the Green member about the work of the MMP parties to hold this issue to account to insist on more consultation and to push for some real solutions. United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12138] 
1.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions has the Justice and Electoral Committee received on the Electoral Finance Bill and how many of those submitters gave oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The Justice and Electoral Committee received 575 submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill and heard from 100 submitters on the bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the chairperson agree with her colleague the Hon Steve Maharey who said: “I am looking forward of course to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee.”; if so why did she ensure that the members of the Human Rights Commission were not able to present oral evidence to the committee where no doubt they would have voiced their strong opposition to the bill? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member has responsibility for the second part but not the first. Would the chair like to address that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What the member said was simply not true. The member as the deputy chair of the committee should be aware that the scheduling of submissions was discussed by the committee and that discussions relating to particular submitters are committee proceedings that are confidential to the committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was somewhat alarmed to note that Mr Ryall got to his feet to say something but you sat him down. I want to know what it was because he has been told not to say a thing unless he checks with Murray McCully his new minder. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows that is not a point of order.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12137] 
12.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the effect on free health care for under-sixes if the cap on general practitioners’ fees were removed and charges were left to be set by “the market”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The member asks a very poignant question and it is clear that she knows there is a history on this issue. Ten years ago this year the then National Minister of Health Bill English at the request of New Zealand First—they were in coalition Government together at that time—introduced and paid for free health care for all under-6-year-olds. But that Government back then did not write that deal into any contract and it did not adjust general practitioner subsidies to account for inflation. So 10 years later—today—about 40 percent of general practitioners do charge under-6-year-olds. It astonishes me that National has not learnt from that lesson. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister also confirm that any removal of the cap and a move to market rates will likely result in under-sixes and seniors who currently receive no-cost or low-cost preventive primary health care delaying medical treatment until they need urgent and more expensive acute care usually at already overstretched emergency departments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is precisely the point and precisely the case. It is time that this Parliament learnt that primary health care matters for the health of all New Zealanders and that we can have slower progress of chronic diseases we can avoid hospitalisation and we can avoid some emergency arising if there is good primary health care. We will never avoid all of that but we can determinedly reduce the costs to the citizen and to the health system of secondary care by having better cheaper more accessible primary care. That is what the Primary Health Care Strategy is about and that is what the National Party would have put a stake through had the media not caught it out. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Government plan to further increase the number of general practitioners who do not charge to see 0 to 6-year-olds; if so how? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we do. The member will be aware that as part of our confidence and supply agreement with her party we recently announced a further increase for general practitioners for the provision of free under-sixes health care. But this time there is a difference; this time if the medical centre is to receive that funding then it will contract to not charge. If it does not contract it will not get the money. So what we will see now is free visits for under-sixes to those general practitioners who choose to contract on an ongoing basis. What is more each year we will increase the level of subsidy or adjustment going to general practitioners to account for inflation—something the National Party never got round to doing.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12124] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to know whether there has been an omission to the questions of the day because Mr McCully has the media in a right lather up there on a total bagatelle but he does not have a question on the Order Paper to show how he is sincere about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is obviously not a point of order.
Smith Nick: Motions — Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
Smith Nick: Motions — Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
[Volume:642;Page:12123] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its condemnation of the arrests beatings and killings of peaceful protesters in Myanmar by the military dictatorship and calls upon the United Nations to take firm measures to ensure the protection of human rights and the restoration of democracy 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
Motions — Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
[Volume:642;Page:12123] 
Tuesday 9 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its condemnation of the arrests beatings and killings of peaceful protesters in Myanmar by the military dictatorship and calls upon the United Nations to take firm measures to ensure the protection of human rights and the restoration of democracy 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11849] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I have spent a considerable amount of time this evening on preparing my speech knowing full well that the Arbitration Amendment Bill is an important issue for this Parliament. Given the very short period of time left and the work I have put into this speech I seek leave from the House to suspend the commencement of my speech for just a little bit longer to allow us to really benefit from my words—if that is appropriate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Brown Peter: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11849] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Are you going to talk about the merchant navy? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the member over there wants to test somebody’s arbitration skills the way he is continuing. 
New Zealand First will support the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It is a bill that addresses the Arbitration Act 1996 which we have been told by members on both sides of the House is working very very well. The bill applies just a few technical amendments to the Act. Arbitration is preferable to litigation for a number of reasons—[ 
Interruption 
]—despite the member opposite. It is preferable because basically it is cheaper and more effective. 
Arbitration is more effective because it tends to bring warring parties together whilst litigation tends to divide parties and sometimes with much acrimony. The Hon Tau Henare is testament to that. He knows how to divide parties with a lot of acrimony. He is a specialist at dividing parties with acrimony and the day will come when he does that to the National Party. 
New Zealand First was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee. We note some rather unusual comments in the commentary and it is appropriate that I put them on the  
Hansard 
 record. It states at one point: “We discussed the possibility of extending the Arbitration Act to cover employment arbitration.” Everybody knows including the Labour members that the Employment Relations Act was set up and specifically ring-fenced to address employment issues. I was quite amazed that the Labour members on the select committee did not recognise that and that they did not make a point of it. In fact the commentary goes on to state: “We believe that this proposal merits further consideration and encourage the Government to investigate the possibility of enabling the Arbitration Act to apply to employment arbitration in the future.” As far as I am aware the Employment Relations Act is working pretty well in terms of mediation and arbitration. I can fully understand members opposite wanting to bring the Employment Relations Act under this legislation but why would Labour want to do that? Maybe that is a question that somebody will answer in the future. 
Meanwhile New Zealand First supports this bill which contains only technical amendments.
Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11845] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and I say thank goodness the bill went through the Primary Production Committee so that we could tidy it up. It came through in December of last year. On 6 December 2006 the bill had its first reading. It was reported back to Parliament at the end of May this year. It has languished on the Order Paper for about 3½ or 4 months now and finally it is in front of us. We had six submissions on the bill and we heard four of them. 
In general the bill is a one-stop shop intended to tidy up the legislation and we support it. We actually had to do quite a bit of work on the bill in order to get it into a tidy state. I do not need to respond to Mr Roy’s good contribution and to the Hon David Carter’s speech this evening because I think they have covered a good deal of what is in the bill. I guess we will get into the intricacies of that in the Committee stage. 
I think it is worthwhile at the moment to just touch on rural affairs which this bill is focused on. Damien O’Conner has been left in limbo by the Prime Minister so right now people in the Beehive will be running around with bits of paper doing the backslapping saying: “I am in your camp. I am supporting you.” and doing a trade-off here and a trade-off there. When we think about it we realise that all the cockies who may be listening to this debate now—having a cup of coffee and a bit of cake before they head off to get a good night’s sleep before calving and lambing commences in the morning—will be wondering who in Labour will potentially fill the gap on rural affairs. If we think about it we wonder whom Labour has. If Mr O’Conner loses all his portfolios—corrections tourism and rural affairs—then whom does Labour have? Labour members are not going to text Jim Sutton and ask him to come back are they? 
Hon David Carter 
: Well they might. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Does the member think they might? 
Labour members will be busy sending out texts to rural New Zealanders asking them to come on board and join the Labour Party because it has a real shortage of rural people in its caucus. There would be a deathly silence in response to that I am sure because rural New Zealand is pretty sceptical about Labour. So we will watch with interest to see whom it can pull in for the 2008 election to support rural New Zealand because we do not see that happening right now. 
The National Party supports this bill. We had to do a bit of work in the select committee in order to get it tidy. In essence we are really supportive of the 3-yearly review on cost recovery which I think is important. We have some concerns about the duplication particularly on costs that may occur. We will just have to watch that issue as it runs. So we are supporting this bill tonight and I wish to thank the select committee for the good work that it had to do to get the bill to where it is now. 
Bill read a second time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11839] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee and indeed the chairperson of that select committee the Hon David Carter for his and his colleagues’ cooperation on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This is a wonderful bill and all the work done in the select committee is appreciated. I must confess that this is one of the fantastic committees that I am a member of and I enjoy working with the committee members. We really worked for the nation. I take pride in the fact that this particular committee works as a team and works for the farmers and for the economy of this country. So to that extent I am delighted. 
New Zealand’s agriculture and forestry sector provides exports to a total value of $17 billion which is about 60 percent of our total merchandise exports and 45 percent of our foreign exchange earnings. So it is a big industry. All the pesticides and veterinary medicines that we use are very important for us and they have a huge input into our industries. We use about $400 million worth of pesticides in our agricultural industry and there is a huge variety of them. New Zealand uses about 1000 different pesticides and 2000 different veterinary medicines and compounds so it is very important that we have access to our veterinary medicines and that we use them in a wise and safe manner. 
This bill is really about managing the risks to animal and human health. So to that extent this is a very timely bill that makes sure that all the agricultural medicines and pesticides are used properly. This bill will ensure that the risks to trade that are associated with agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines are managed more efficiently. I do not have a lot to add to what the Minister has already said. Both sides of the House agree that this is a very good bill and I support and commend it to the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11835] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It would be a terrible evening if Mr Finlayson were disappointed. I will take a short call to respond to the load of political bile that emanated from that side of the Chamber. After working jointly in a non-partisan way with the Justice and Electoral Committee the reason that members of the Government have chosen to allow this bill to go forward is simply a little bit of common sense. 
We agree with the Property Law Bill. We do not need to hear hour upon hour of the sound of our own voices and our own legal knowledge of those of us on this side of the Chamber—not including myself—who are lawyers. We do not need to stand up and wax eloquently way back over the centuries of law. Put simply the taxpayers of New Zealand pay us to pass legislation. The Government agrees with this bill. The Government thanks the Opposition—at least those on the select committee—for the way in which they expedited this non-partisan legislation as facilitated by the Law Commission. 
It is a fact that the legislation makes radical change and improves our property laws. It is significant legislation as the learned Mr Finlayson said. Therefore in the view of the Government instead of puffing up our own egos taking speech after speech we agree with and support the legislation—as does the Opposition—and we feel we should pass the legislation as taxpayers charge us on our large salaries to do. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill without amendment the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill with amendment and the Property Law Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11835] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am almost completely dumbfounded by the Committee stage of this bill tonight. This bill is the most important reform of property law for 55 years. It has been in gestation for many years indeed because as the Justice and Electoral Committee’s commentary on the bill states it builds on the work of the Law Commission over a lengthy period of time and more recently on the work of the Ministry of Justice. It deals with extremely important rules of law affecting most if not all New Zealanders at some time in their lives. Yet what we have seen is not one Government speaker prepared to stand up and say anything about any part of it. Nothing! They were all sitting there utterly mute. I am simply amazed that on such important legislation they could not get off their chuffs and make at least a brief contribution. 
Look at the subject matter we have been studying tonight and which National members have been addressing—mortgages powers of attorney deeds leases—all the sorts of things that we need to understand and that we come in contact with time and time again. I go back to the days when I used to sit up in the public gallery when I was a student. In those days of course there would have been a clause by clause analysis of the bill and we would have had the Geoffrey Palmers on their feet debating the clause by clause analysis—a rigid exegetical analysis of the legislation. Look at members opposite now sitting there in various states of putrefaction totally unable to make any contribution. I think they are so absorbed in intra-party hatred and fighting that they have no energy left to come down to the Chamber and discuss the Property Law Bill. 
I am very very disappointed because it is important legislation. It is not every day that the Parliament of this land looks at some of these arcane and important areas of law and we have had no contribution to the legislative process from Labour at all. I frankly am dumbfounded by the failure of the Government to engage in the debate. It is not as though we were working incredibly hard on this side because all we needed to do was have a part by part analysis. In the time available given the restrictions on debating bills by parts all we could do is take one or two subjects and then expand on that. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: But we were on the select committee. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: We were on the committee we were interested and we were prepared to play a part—unlike the drones on the other side. I am very disappointed. Thus this legislation passes into law and one can say in all honesty that the Labour members in the Committee have contributed not one jot or tittle.
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11833] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 For the record I will make some brief comments on Part 7 which deals with miscellaneous provisions. The part that interests me is the second part of Part 7 which sets out certain repeals. It is worth referring for example to clauses 360 and 361 because they give the Committee an idea of the extent of the changes that are being introduced by this very important legislation. I ask members to go to clause 360(2) where they will see that some very ancient statutes indeed are headed for the scrap heap. We start with the 1267 Statute of Marlborough and move to the 1289-90 Quia Emptores statute the Partition Act 1539 the Partition Act 1540 and so on. Through the reign of William and Mary some statutes go; some statutes from Queen Anne’s time go; various statutes from George II—one of those Hanoverian kings—go; and then statutes from more recent Victorian times go. Indeed that famous statute the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 is affected by this legislation. 
All I am trying to emphasise is that as a result of the passage of this legislation certain imperial enactments relating to property are no longer to be considered part of the law of New Zealand. It will be very interesting after this legislation has been passed to undertake an assessment of just how many imperial enactments are left. I venture to suggest there will not be very many at all. 
So Part 7 is absolutely uncontroversial and it simply deals with a couple of miscellaneous rules. But for the record it is worth considering the far-reaching impact of clause 360 because as I said it deals with imperial enactments repeal. So some of those ancient statutes that were brought into New Zealand by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 shall upon the Governor-General’s assent being given have no longer any effect in this country. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11832] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on Part 5 includes debate on schedules 4 and 5. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.