edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a second time.name changed to Waste Minimisation Bill
Brown Peter: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16731] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because New Zealand First was not represented on the Local Government and Environment Committee and therefore did not play an active part in shaping the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. But we are concerned about the bill. When the bill was sent to the select committee it was an example of bureaucracy gone mad but as I recall we supported it going to the committee because we thought that the principles behind it needed to be discussed. As I recall the National Party had a similar view to us at that point in time. I note that its members have now changed their minds although Jacqui Dean did indicate that she still had some concerns. 
Members of the public have contacted various members of New Zealand First since the bill emerged from the Local Government and Environment Committee and they have outlined a number of serious concerns. We note that the initial bill has virtually been ditched. A significant number of pages have been deleted a significant number of pages have been inserted and on top of that there is a Supplementary Order Paper of some 40 pages including the explanatory note. We are not convinced that the select committee has it right. We looked at the membership of that committee and tried to work out who was on it on a permanent basis—it seems to be a never-ending rotating list. I do not know how many times the committee membership has been rotated but there was a very long list of members. 
At this point in time New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. We will listen with interest to the debate when the bill reaches the Committee stage. We respect the member who put up the bill Nandor Tanczos. We had some informal private discussions with him and we found that his intentions were good. We are not against what is intended but we are really concerned that the methodology of addressing the problem is not yet fine-tuned enough. One of the people who made a representation to us indicated that charges for disposing waste are likely to give an incentive for people to put more waste on the roadside and in the hedgerows. I do not know whether that will occur but there is a concern that we might well be pricing out of the market—if that is the right terminology—the incentive to dispose of waste in the proper areas. The suggestion put to us is that there will be a perverse incentive created to dump rubbish in hedgerows or down banks and what have you. We hope that will not occur but we have concerns. Respectable people in the community have raised serious concerns with us so at this point in time we will oppose the bill.
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16725] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion not agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16709] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. Can you please sit? The first people to speak in this second reading 2 or 3 weeks ago were from New Zealand First and National. Labour should have taken the call when we came into the debate today. It was taken by National. I will now resume the order as at No. 3. We will have Labour the Greens the Maori Party United Future ACT and then we will skip a National speaker and go on. Thank you.
Jones Dail: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16708] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just clarify where New Zealand First is on the speaking list. We are on a second reading and have just had the second speech from a National member so are we No. 8 or No. 10 in the speaking list of 12? If we are No. 8 it means that the Greens the Maori Party United Future and ACT have all missed out on an opportunity to speak—that is if they wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could everyone other than Dail Jones sit down please. 
DAIL JONES 
: I mention it for the sake of the Maori Party members if they had wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I deal with the point of order please. 
DAIL JONES 
: The point of order is that they have lost their opportunity to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have heard the point of order and I am now going to adjudicate on it and explain. 
DAIL JONES 
: We have no objection to—
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16704] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I will take a brief call to reassert our continued support for this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. I do not have the historical connection with the sport that Mr Dail Jones and others may have with tennis never having been one of my things but I am passionate about the Auckland Domain where I have spent a lot of time in years gone by. 
One of my main concerns with this bill as an Auckland MP was about any threat of encroachment on to the public spaces at the domain. I have a real concern about another Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that is about to come to this House because part of that bill is aimed at taking out over 1100 square metres of Albert Park—somewhere else where I have spend a lot of time in my earlier days. I think that we cannot afford in Auckland to lose any more of our open green space for any purpose. We need to keep those spaces for the future of the people of our city. The open spaces in Albert Park and the domain are very precious. But my understanding of this bill is that the development does not encroach on to the domain so we are fine with it as far as that goes. 
The other concern I had with this bill was in relation to consultation with local iwi. Obviously this is an area of great significance for local iwi and we were worried that in the initial phases consultation either had not taken place at all or was not adequate. I understand from a brief conversation I have just had that there has at least been some consultation now. That concern hopefully will be met adequately so our support continues. Thank you.
Borrows Chester: General Debate 
Borrows Chester: General Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16694] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a comment from the Minister of Police who said: “Current efforts to reduce the availability of methamphetamine and prevent the diversion of pseudoephedrine into the manufacturing of …”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Objection has been taken.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16679] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What new measures have been taken to improve the protection of the Kaikoura Ranges? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Recently I had the pleasure of opening the breathtaking Ka Whata Tu o Rakihouia Conservation Park in the Kaikoura Ranges. The park covers 88000 hectares and has the wide support of iwi the community and interest groups. This park forms part of the Labour Government’s plan for the future which aims to protect New Zealand’s unique biodiversity while increasing public opportunities for getting out and enjoying our heritage. 
Moana Mackey 
: What are the biodiversity gains associated with this park? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The natural treasures protected in the park include the rare Hutton’s shearwater the New Zealand falcon the black-eyed gecko and plants that occur only in the South Marlborough region including rock daisies and various broom species. This is now one of the very few places in New Zealand where ecosystems are protected from the mountain tops to the sea.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16673] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What reports has she received on the contribution to New Zealand made by volunteers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 This week is Volunteer Awareness Week a time to acknowledge the vital contribution made by volunteers towards the well-being of fellow New Zealanders. A report published yesterday estimated that 1.2 million people volunteered in the previous 12 months. That is around a third of all New Zealanders over the age of 10. Almost 80 percent of those people who volunteered also donated money or goods. I would like to commend all those New Zealanders for their dedication and their generosity. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What progress has been made in the implementing of the Government’s volunteering policy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Since we launched our volunteering policy in 2002 we have seen the profile of volunteering within Government grow and produce positive results. That includes announcing changes that will make volunteer expense reimbursements tax-exempt with no limits; $6.5 million over 4 years to assist sport and recreational organisations with recruitment training and retaining volunteers; and information resources to encourage good volunteer management. I seek the leave of the House to table  
Government Support for Volunteering 2002-2008 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16667] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be read a second time and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches.
Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16667] 
Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be read a second time and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
[Volume:647;Page:16667] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the House of Representatives from the Republic of Indonesia led by Mr F X Soekarno chair of the Legislative Agency is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome them.
Visitors — Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
Visitors — Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
[Volume:647;Page:16667] 
Wednesday 18 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the House of Representatives from the Republic of Indonesia led by Mr F X Soekarno chair of the Legislative Agency is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome them.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second 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 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority 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 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16653] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill to congratulate my colleagues on bringing this measure forward and also to congratulate those people who made submissions on it. Those people bared their souls and their lives so that we could make this very important change to the present Act. In particular I refer to Mr Bruce Gardiner from Hamilton. I know how sorely disappointed he will be in the speech made by David Bennett before when Mr Bennett said that he would not support this legislation because Mr Bruce Gardiner would not be catered for retrospectively. I know that Mr Gardiner would want him to vote for this bill because Mr Gardiner’s position has always been that he was fighting to ensure that in the future people did not have the same dreadful experience he had when as a truckdriver he was inadvertently caught up in a suicide. He was extremely traumatised by running over somebody and was unable to continue in his occupation. He has fought and petitioned to ensure that the change we are debating here was brought about. 
I thank those people who have made submissions. I know they will be very pleased that this bill will be voted forward in its second reading. They will be sorely disappointed in the National Party and in the very cute arguments National members have tried to bring forward as pitiful excuses for not supporting this bill in its second reading. Thank you.
O'Connor Damien: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16653] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I will take a short call to follow on from the good wise words of my colleague Darien Fenton. This matter is something that I feel very passionate about. John Key has said that the National Party will offer choice if it were ever to get into power and tonight we heard Paul Hutchison ask why a victim should not have the right to sue. Let us be clear here. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes he said that. It was another backbencher letting the cat out of the bag. Let us be clear here. What we are doing tonight is improving what is a very very good system of accident compensation internationally. This is one of the best—the envy of every First World country. For those people who drive and create the wealth in this country—those people in the rural areas—it is absolutely essential that they understand their choice as we come into the next election. It is quite clear in relation to accident compensation that with a Labour-led Government people will get the continuation and the improvement of the accident compensation system but with the National Party people will get choice à la privatisation of accident compensation and a return of the right of victims to sue. That is what Mr Hutchison said and that is what John Key has said. Well people should go and ask anyone around the world—whether it be in Ireland or the US—what the right to sue does. It means that all the money gets chewed up in the law courts around the country and less and less money goes to the victims. It is really essential that we understand that. 
People in this country have taken for granted for too long that it is just automatic that we get proper rehabilitation that we get proper compensation while we are off work because that is the way it is. Well it is not. The thing is that this Labour Government came back into power and reinstated a comprehensive accident compensation system because the previous National Government had attempted to privatise it. We had started to see a breakdown in accident compensation. There is one thing that the rural sector—people who live far away from health care people who live and work with animals people who live and work with often dangerous vehicles and people in the tourism system—should have and that is proper consideration protection and compensation where necessary through the accident compensation system. 
If the National Party ever comes to power and attempts to privatise the accident compensation system we will see a breakdown in the New Zealand economy and in the way of life that we enjoy. It is important that every single New Zealander understands what the National Party intends to do and that is to privatise accident compensation to break down the system that has grown the economy of this country to where it is today.
Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16634] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I seek leave for my member’s bill the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down as members’ order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 2 July. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be done.
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16634] 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I seek leave for my member’s bill the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down as members’ order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 2 July. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be done.
Vote: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16634] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16631] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Kate Wilkinson for her contribution and for her amendment which she obviously believes in firmly. I believe that if we were to pass her amendment then we would actually make a mockery of the bill we have been debating. Although we have been putting in place what we believe are tougher measures around graffiti vandalism not addressing the issue of access to spray-cans would I believe dilute the bill considerably. You see what we are asking for is not onerous on shopkeepers. We are saying that spray-cans ought to be kept under the watchful eye of the shopkeeper. 
My colleague David Benson-Pope very clearly set out what our problem is. The problem is that often young folk who go out and carry out their vandalism do not bother to go to the shopkeeper to buy spray-cans; they help themselves to spray-cans. I have seen examples of shops where spray-cans are on the bottom shelf and near the door. It is easy to whip in take out a spray-can and do $10000 worth of damage—with one spray-can. So what we are asking of shopkeepers in my view is not onerous at all. The legislation does not require them to have complex security measures. It does require them to physically restrict access to spray-cans. They could have them behind the counter for example. We do not argue about the fact that we have tobacco behind the counter of a dairy. That is common in New Zealand. We say that we do not want under-18-year-olds to get their hands on tobacco. We have it on display behind the counter and it is easy to get if the shopkeeper is there to assist. So I do not believe that it is onerous. 
I also think that there is a difference between the storage of alcohol in a supermarket and the storage of spray-cans. It is pretty hard to get out of a supermarket unless one goes out through the checkout so supermarket staff do have a watchful eye over the product that goes out of a supermarket. It is much harder for staff in a dairy or a small retail outlet to have a product under a watchful eye if it is on a shelf. Spray-cans are easy to access there—one can stick a spray-can in one’s bag and leave. 
I do not want us to destroy the aims and ambitions of this bill which we have spoken about in a collective voice today. I also think that it is important for members to know that the Ministry of Justice intends to give support to local authorities and retailers in respect of this legislation. This will be in the form of advice leaflets and signage to clarify the responsibilities of retailers and their employees. We are not just leaving them on their own. There is support and back-up for them. But if we were to accept the member’s amendment—which I am in no doubt was put forward in all sincerity—I believe that we would undo much of the very good work in Part 1 which we have just passed.
Borrows Chester: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16626] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call in respect of Part 1 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Members will realise that there are already a number of provisions within our law that deal with criminal damage—that is wilful damage or intentional damage as it is called under various pieces of legislation. There is section 33 of the Summary Offences Act which this legislation alters; there is section 11 of the Summary Offences Act which relates to “wilful damage”; and there is section 269 of the Crimes Act which relates to “intentional damage”. Obviously it is sort of a graduated scale. 
Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act as it is at the moment allows for a penalty of imprisonment and this falls short of that by providing for community work or community service. My question—and I wonder whether the Minister can help me here because we did raise it several times within the select committee process—is this: when a young person under the age of 17 appears before the Youth Court and the court wishes to impose a penalty that involves community work or community service does that young person have to agree to it? I cannot remember which section or subsection it is in but there is a provision that states that if the Youth Court wants to sentence an offender under the age of 17 to a penalty that involves community service the young offender currently has to agree to it. 
I understand that there is a clause in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6)—which I think is currently before the Social Services Committee—to remove that subsection so that they can be sentenced to a term of community service. I guess the question for the Minister is whether under this piece of legislation the young person would still have to consent at least until that legislation is transacted through the House. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16618] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 3 
ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16617] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I wholeheartedly support what Mr Borrows had to say. I sincerely hope that the police and the Ministry of Justice take his comments to heart and that we do not have endless problems with jury trials in the future. From the point of view of procedure New Zealand First will vote no only once and that will be against Part 5 as amended rather than voting on all the amendments. We will be supporting the bill as a whole because in principle the bill as a whole is sound apart from Part 5. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to proposed new clause 98A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to: 
To omit this clause. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 98A as amended the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in his name to Part 5 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 5 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 92 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 178(1)(c) “sections 109 110 or 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”; 
to omit from section 180(1)(c) “section 109 section 110 or section 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”; and 
to omit from section 181(1)(b) “section 109 section 110 or section 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16607] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Part 5 covers clauses 84 to 98. It includes debate on schedules 4 5 and 6. It also includes the Minister’s typescript amendment to omit proposed new clause 98A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 97 and 206 and the typescript amendments to clause 92.
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16606] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will speak briefly about payment of jurors referring to clause 82B. I think we should give a great tribute to all those New Zealanders who attend and take up the role of jurors sometimes for some considerable length of time. I think we probably all believe they do not get paid anywhere near enough for the wonderful contribution they make to our society. Clause 82B gives some recognition to the role of the juror and provides that the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection: “The jury rules prescribing those fees and expenses may authorise the chief executive if satisfied in a particular case that it is desirable to do so to increase a sum otherwise payable under those rules.” I ask the Minister what consideration has been given to giving effect to this provision from time to time. I ask that he clarify just who the chief executive is—whether that is the chief executive of the justice department or of the courts department. There is no interpretation section here—the phrase “chief executive” must be in the main Act I presume. As I looked at it I was wondering about those words and just what they meant because we should do all we can to reward jurors as much as we can—and that is still nowhere near enough—for the wonderful work they do. 
Apart from that of course what we are doing in New Zealand is amending the provision of the Great Charter of 1215 in Runnymede which provided for the beginnings of trial by one’s peers—the barons in those days—and which has developed through history to one’s fellow man and woman. New Zealand First supports Part 4 of the bill and I look forward to any answers forthcoming from the Minister.
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16605] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Worth I will just say that there is a change in the sound in the Chamber in that people having conversations in here are much louder today for some reason. I think it is to do with the changing of the sound system. It makes it hard for me in the Chair to hear the speeches being made. I ask members to lower their voices or keep away from those very sensitive microphones. It would be a very good idea. Thank you.
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16604] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate on Part 4 includes debate on the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton.
King Annette: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16602] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Bill amends the District Courts Act. It gives the District Court jurisdiction to try all indictable offences expect those in the schedule. The jurisdiction of the District Court will not change very much but the new schedule does correct some anomalies. 
The new schedule also permits changes to be made to the middle band of offences by way of Order in Council rather than by legislative change. This provision was added at the select committee and if passed will allow some class A drug offences to be put in the middle band to be dealt with by the District Courts rather than by the High Courts. This would ease pressure on the High Courts arising particularly from the volume of methamphetamine cases that are now being heard. One of the reasons we now see so many more methamphetamine cases is the very strong policing approach that the New Zealand Police takes to methamphetamine clan-labs. If we look at the number of clan-labs that were found by the New Zealand Police in 1999 we see that it was around three or four for that year. If we look at the number being found now we see that it is around 200 a year. A lot of work is going into catching those who produce methamphetamine which means they are appearing in the High Court. There is now a large backlog of those offenders in the court and this part would allow their cases to be heard in the District Court. This is something that judges have been asking for for some time. They believe that it is an imperative change to be made in this bill and they have asked us to get on and make that change. 
I am pleased that we are now back to debating the Committee stage of this very important bill which in my view and in the view obviously of the select committee who made no amendments to this part would make the workings of our courts much better. It would make access to justice fairer and faster and surely that is what most legislation should reflect.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16599] 
10.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that Child Youth and Family is a responsive organisation that is focused on providing excellent service to children young people and families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Today I have announced an improved process for Child Youth and Family when responding to complaints. The new process will ensure that Child Youth and Family listens to all concerns firstly at a local level and tries to resolve the issues there and then. But if an issue remains unresolved clients can then apply to have an independent advisory panel review their complaint. The new process will be more transparent and more accessible. It is designed so that families know their rights and understand the commitment of all social workers to work positively with them. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has she received regarding the responsiveness of the Child Youth and Family national call centre? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Child Youth and Family call centre was recently awarded the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand contact centre of the year award making it the only contact centre to have won that award twice. The judges stated that the passion and enthusiasm of the staff was a key aspect of the win. The call centre receives over 4000 calls a day 88 percent of which are answered within 20 seconds which is 8 percent better than industry standards. A high-performing call centre is a vital tool for Child Youth and Family to help keep our children and young people safe.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16592] 
6.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: Did New Zealand achieve its objectives at the Dublin Convention on Cluster Munitions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 Yes. We achieved a superb outcome in Dublin and I am proud to say that New Zealand played a key role in that. Our first objective was to get a ban on cluster munitions because undetonated sub-munitions spread over a wide area such as in the Lebanon effectively act as landmines killing civilians long after war has ended. The outcome of this convention in line with our objectives was to virtually prohibit all cluster munitions and to require that stockpiles of such munitions be destroyed within 8 years. Our second objective was to get widespread support for the ban. We did that. The convention was supported by the United Nations by non-governmental organisations across the board and I think by all of the countries participating in Dublin. The key Cluster Munition Coalition described the event as an extraordinary convention that would save thousands of lives. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How important was the role that New Zealand played in achieving this wonderful outcome? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think we can say justifiably that New Zealand played a key role. We were one of six countries in the Geneva process last year that when it failed yet again to address the problem of cluster munitions took that process outside Geneva in something called the Oslo process. It was the Oslo process that achieved in 18 months what the United Nations in Geneva had failed to do in 10 years. In February New Zealand hosted a conference in Wellington and that laid the framework for Dublin. In Dublin we led the core process in defining what cluster munitions were and defining those that would be prohibited. As a result New Zealand I think very deservedly has won widespread acknowledgment for playing such a leading role. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Have the process and the convention received sufficient buy-in from countries to make a real impact on the ground in removing these weapons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that we were seeking two things: to have a strong convention but also to have a breadth of support that would make that convention meaningful. We did that; we got overwhelming backing from the 111 countries that were participating in Dublin. I am very pleased to say that this convention has had a major effect even before it comes into force with countries such as France the United Kingdom Switzerland Germany and Japan announcing the withdrawal of cluster munitions. Even for those countries that are not participants the wide-ranging consensus that was achieved will stigmatise and make more difficult the use of cluster munitions just as was the case with the Ottawa Convention which stigmatised and stopped the use of landmines.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16588] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it the Government’s policy that groups intending to spend more than $12000 on election advertisements must register with the Electoral Commission as a third party; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is a requirement under the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister consider that the parliamentary Labour leader’s office must register as a third party given that the brochure I am holding was produced entirely on the initiative of that office and that the cost of producing and distributing the brochure nationwide is likely to exceed $12000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not the role of the Minister of Justice to provide this advice; that is a matter for the relevant authorities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that both Mike Smith the general secretary of the Labour Party and a spokesman for Helen Clark Prime Minister have said that the New Zealand Labour Party had nothing to do with producing this brochure; if that is the case does not that mean that the parliamentary Labour leader’s office is in fact the promoter and should have authorised it and not the Labour Party which has said on public record that it has nothing to do with this pamphlet? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not a matter for the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under that Electoral Finance Act—if she has actually read it—any organisation separate from the New Zealand Labour Party that wants to spend more than $12000 promoting the Labour Party must register as a third party; and why would it be different for the parliamentary Labour leader’s office than for any other group of people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have read the Electoral Finance Act as have other members in this House and I presume that when the National Party has put out policies so far on its website it has an authorised website and has the parliamentary crest on it. That party is not intending to register as a third party so what is the difference? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give us advice about the only two options that are available under the legislation: either the brochure is produced by the parliamentary Labour leader’s office in which case that office must register as a third party or the brochure is produced by the New Zealand Labour Party in which case the brochure needs to be counted as an election expense because it cannot possibly have a parliamentary purpose? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not my role to give advice; it is the role of the appropriate authorities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who will decide then on the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act requiring third parties who spend over $12000 on election advertising to register—will the Minister decide will the Electoral Commission decide or will the Minister leave it to the courts to decide after the election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member had read the Act he would know that it is not me who decides.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. I move  
That this House acknowledge the passing of Monte Rereamoamo Ohia of Ngati Pukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Te Arawa a nationally and internationally respected educational leader who advanced developments in wananga the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the Ministry and Department of Education polytechnics and universities for over three decades; acknowledge also the passing of respected Tuhourangi kaumatua Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell one of Te Arawa’s last members of the 28th Maori Battalion; and agree that this House express our sincere sympathies to the whanau and friends of these two men who have made such a significant contribution to our nation 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As the member said the only course of action is to object to leave being given. However I am sure that members have noted what has been said and presumably if the practice continues members will take the course of action that is available to them.
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am most reluctant to raise this objection but I want to say that a number of us have had very senior members of the party die over the last year and previous years and very eminent people in Maoridom at that—Pita Paraone’s father for example who was one of the last survivors of the Maori Battalion recently died. But we would not think it appropriate to stop the business of the House with such frequency to debase the currency of the reason we do that for some people associated with Parliament in the past or for people of the stature of Sir Edmund Hillary. 
All I am saying to my colleague over here is that despite his approaching New Zealand First and being told that he has sought to put this before the House today. I hope it is not to cause some embarrassment to my party in respect of these people for whom we have the utmost time. We are very sympathetic for their families but it is the way this institution is being sought to be used here that New Zealand First deems inappropriate. That is the reason why we did not come to this Parliament to do that following the deaths of people such as the Hon Bert Walker—a longstanding member of Parliament—Edwin Perry’s father or Pita Paraone’s father. I put it to my colleague that this is an unfair use of Parliament and to seek to embarrass us in this light is most unfortunate.
Key John: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound System 
Key John: Points of Order — Chamber—Sound System 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have had work done on the sound system but I tell you that absolutely no noise at all is coming over here other than an echo that is reverberating around the Chamber. Something is actually not working. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we have already notified the persons in charge of it of that fact. Thank you Mr Key.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion in my name with regard to the deaths of two eminent New Zealanders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
Obituaries — Monte Rereamoamo Ohia Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
Obituaries 
Monte Rereamoamo Ohia 
Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion in my name with regard to the deaths of two eminent New Zealanders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am most reluctant to raise this objection but I want to say that a number of us have had very senior members of the party die over the last year and previous years and very eminent people in Maoridom at that—Pita Paraone’s father for example who was one of the last survivors of the Maori Battalion recently died. But we would not think it appropriate to stop the business of the House with such frequency to debase the currency of the reason we do that for some people associated with Parliament in the past or for people of the stature of Sir Edmund Hillary. 
All I am saying to my colleague over here is that despite his approaching New Zealand First and being told that he has sought to put this before the House today. I hope it is not to cause some embarrassment to my party in respect of these people for whom we have the utmost time. We are very sympathetic for their families but it is the way this institution is being sought to be used here that New Zealand First deems inappropriate. That is the reason why we did not come to this Parliament to do that following the deaths of people such as the Hon Bert Walker—a longstanding member of Parliament—Edwin Perry’s father or Pita Paraone’s father. I put it to my colleague that this is an unfair use of Parliament and to seek to embarrass us in this light is most unfortunate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As the member said the only course of action is to object to leave being given. However I am sure that members have noted what has been said and presumably if the practice continues members will take the course of action that is available to them. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. I move  
That this House acknowledge the passing of Monte Rereamoamo Ohia of Ngati Pukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Te Arawa a nationally and internationally respected educational leader who advanced developments in wananga the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the Ministry and Department of Education polytechnics and universities for over three decades; acknowledge also the passing of respected Tuhourangi kaumatua Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell one of Te Arawa’s last members of the 28th Maori Battalion; and agree that this House express our sincere sympathies to the whanau and friends of these two men who have made such a significant contribution to our nation 
. 
Motion agreed to.