edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Blue Jackie: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5614. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. The bill was looked at and reviewed by the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last term of Parliament. It makes an important change to the Act by restoring the title of Queen’s Counsel which I support and replaces the office currently known as Senior Counsel. 
It is very interesting to know having read the submissions from the Bar Association that it strongly supports this change. Even the Law Society even though it admitted that its submissions were quite neutral made the comment that the changes that had been made by the previous Government were largely policy based and not in response to any pressing call for change. 
The bill will repeal that arrangement by reinstating the title of Queen’s Counsel. Really the Queen’s Counsel title has its origins in our history and reflects the public purpose and the status of this position. It identifies leading advocates in the legal profession. It is a rank and title to aspire to. It is synonymous with excellence and is instantly recognisable in New Zealand and internationally. I commend this bill to the House.
Ngaro Alfred: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5611. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill in its second reading. This bill implements the Government’s policy on Queen’s Counsel. It also makes minor amendments to provisions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. There are several other matters in the bill. Simply this bill restores the rank of Queen’s Counsel and restricts eligibility for appointment to that rank to barristers sole. It also amends the provision in the Act relating to a conveyancing practitioner holding non-voting shares of an incorporated law firm. Finally it makes minor and technical amendments to enhance the functioning of the Act. This is an important step in reinstating the status and independence of the top rank of advocates in New Zealand. I commend this bill.
Calder Cam: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5609. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on this Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. In April 2000 the Labour Government abolished knighthoods and damehoods. In 2006 the same Labour Government looking through a similarly selective misanthropic lens at any honours that smacked of vestiges of the British Crown abolished the rank of Queen’s Counsel. I am proud of those links. The Queen is our head of State and I applaud the maintenance of recognition of our ties. 
The submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association on the bill at that time make for interesting reading. The Law Society commented that although the nature of the submissions in 2006 was relatively neutral the submissions of the New Zealand Bar Association were strongly opposed to the 2006 change and it seemed apparent to the Law Society that these changes were in large part policy based and not in response to any increasing call for change from the public or any professional body. The Law Society makes a comment on appointing a Queen’s Counsel that the objective must be the appointment of only the best people distinguished by their outstanding all-round qualities of excellence integrity judgment and leadership. This is the intention. The Bar Association’s current submission strongly supports the intent of this bill because it restores the historical status of the rank of Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand. 
We listened carefully to the legal profession and this legislation is also in response to its concerns that the title of Senior Counsel does not adequately reflect the nature and status of that rank. I mean let us face it the title of Queen’s Counsel is instantly recognisable throughout the greater part of the English-speaking world as providing certainty of a high standard of legal advice. 
This move will also protect the essential independence of the inner bar as we have heard before. The looser rules of eligibility of Senior Counsel introduced by the previous Government threaten to dilute that independence of our most senior advocates. The bill restores the rank of Queen’s Counsel and restricts the eligibility of that rank to barristers sole as we have heard. This is an important step. 
I want to take up Mr Chauvel’s point briefly. He may be interested to know that my understanding is that in Australia quite recently the Government of Queensland no less has indicated it is looking very closely at dispensing with Senior Counsel and bringing back Queen’s Counsel. That is just a small aside and of course it has not influenced us in the least—it is just a point of information for you. I commend the bill to the House.
Barry Maggie: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5601. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill which will make a significant contribution towards making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. This is a bill that was argued vigorously within the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The goal of achieving the 10 percent a year increase for 4 years is something we decided was good but we did not want it to stop there so we have recommended that the Government monitor the progress very closely and keep it going if necessary with further tax excises until after 2016 and for as long as it is required. 
I am on the Finance and Expenditure Committee which heard this bill. We received 94 submissions and heard 19 oral submissions many of them presenting very good ideas. We heard of some interesting smoking cessation programmes—electronic cigarettes—some of which were very good. But we have to be mindful that the World Health Organization has indicated that electronic cigarettes that contain nicotine should be regulated as medicine so we have recommended as part of our discussions that more research be undertaken into e-cigarettes that contain nicotine. We also considered duty-free tobacco concession but we did consider it outside our scope because this is a narrow bill. Generally this is a very significant contribution to attaining our goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. I fully support this bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5599. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have still got more time if you want it.
Bennett David: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5598. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Labour Party just needed to say that last sentence in the previous speech. It did not need to have all that economic waffle which is just rubbish. The economy has grown in the last 6 months more than it did under the Labour Government. When National took office it took on an economy in recession and it has turned it round in these most difficult times. That is the economic reality. 
The Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is not a revenue-gathering bill. This is in the best interests of New Zealanders’ health. If the Labour Party was serious about that it had 9 years to do more than it did in this area. Token changes were made by a Labour Government that did not take them to the public. Bill English was quite right in what he said—that Labour Government did not put it in front of the people. We have put it in front of the people. Labour knew that the Government was going to make these changes. They are in the best interests of the population and the public and of our health. It is a good bill and we support it all the way through the House.
Hayes John: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5596. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this debate on the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. It is a little bit disappointing to listen to the quality of the debate this afternoon. Labour and the Greens are arguing that “Yes we support you but it’s just a tax grab not a health measure.” Then they go and complain about why the issue came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and not the Health Committee. Well I think the outcome of this going through the Finance and Expenditure Committee shows that the committee members there had a good deal of common sense. 
The last speaker from the New Zealand First Party Andrew Williams said that this measure was simply a sop to the Maori Party. Well that is not the case. Then he went on to explain that he had sat on the committee—well he did for one session—and asked questions about the duty-free allowance; he was not there the following week to hear that the amount of cigarettes sold through duty-free stores equates to about 500 million a year. This has just been politicking in the House this afternoon. 
I want to just make the point that human beings respond to signals. It is very clear—there is very strong evidence—that a 10 percent increase in the tax reduces the number of smokers by 4 percent. Nobody in the Opposition at least has mentioned this afternoon that the Budget in 2012 has provided $20 million over the next 4 years to help people stop smoking. This is a very sensible bill it is very well constructed and I support it.
Goldsmith Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5594. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of this the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and I do so with pleasure because the purpose of this bill is to increase the excise tax on tobacco to reduce smoking. Over the next 4 years excise taxes will increase 10 percent a year on top of the 40 percent increase since April 2009. The advice we have had in the Finance and Expenditure Committee is that for every 10 percent increase in price tobacco consumption falls by about 4 percent. So this increase I am sure will contribute to the improvement of our health outcomes in New Zealand. 
I must say I do find it fascinating that we have the Labour Party and the Greens supportive of this principle this basic principle: that if you want to stop something—if you want to stop smoking—you increase the taxes and that discourages people from doing it. That is how you go about doing things. But when it comes to taxing work they have a very different view. They do not seem to see that same logic flowing through. If you tax work and you tax income very highly it discourages people from doing it and if you tax saving by capital gains taxes that also has a disincentive on people doing it. So it is interesting to see the different logic you have in the different parts of the mind when it comes to these things. But all in all I am very much in favour of this bill and I think it will make a real contribution to reducing the harm caused in this country by smoking. Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I wish to advise the House that this is a split call between the Labour Party and the Green Party and both speakers will get a bell with 1 minute to go.
Simpson Scott: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Both my grandfathers served at Gallipoli. Both fortunately returned eventually to New Zealand. Many thousands of others did not. In subsequent battles to protect our heritage and our freedom of our country it is very appropriate that this new national memorial park be fast tracked through in time for the centennial commemoration of the Gallipoli landing. It is with enormous pride that I support the second reading of this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill.
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway.
O'Connor Simon: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I think it is a chance in this short speech to acknowledge the cooperation that has occurred around the House in bringing this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill forward. I certainly acknowledge the Greens and their opposition for their reasons. But really this is about a national memorial for those who have served us in war. I think it is not my or our speeches today that are going to be the memorial but the memorial itself which is to be built in 2015. I just ask that we pass this bill and have that appropriate memorial set up.
Ross Jami-Lee: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 This bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill enjoys considerable support around the House. All I really wish to do is endorse the comments of the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and just provide a couple of points in rebuttal to the Green Party. This is an important piece of legislation to achieve the goals of having a National War Memorial Park in place by the 2015 Gallipoli centenary. There are strengthened provisions in this bill whereby we are seeing a stronger community forum in place; where we are seeing strengthened disallowance procedures where there are 12 days in which members can lodge a disallowance motion if they feel the need to; where there is a review panel in place; and where the Minister’s powers to provide recommendations for Orders in Council have a significant check on them whereby he has to have considered all reasonably practicable alternatives. This is a good piece of legislation and I endorse it entirely.
Vote: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member should know better. He has been here long enough now. It is still a debatable point.
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are in a bit of a bind because Speaker’s ruling 38/4 refers to interjections. I was not interjecting when the member made this case. It is not up to me to say how the Greens would vote; it is up to our caucus. Therefore—
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. That is a debatable point.
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek under Standing Order 107 to correct a misrepresentation made in the debate by the member for Palmerston North. The member— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I was not actually seeking leave— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Under which Standing Order was it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Standing Order 107. He wishes to make a correction. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I was not actually seeking leave but just to alert the House that the member for Palmerston North pointed to me saying how the Greens would or would not vote—
Woodhouse Michael: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to just preface my comments by reminding the House of what Mr Bennett said in his call acknowledging the very good work that the Green members did in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in considering this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill because that offering from Ms Genter completely confused me— 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Genter! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —Ms Genter—particularly the last comment which was that it was an outrageous bill. Well that is not particularly what her colleague Mr Hughes said and I do not think we heard the answer to Mr Lees-Galloway’s very sage question which was had they held the balance of power what would they do? Ms Genter tried to answer the question. I am none the wiser. I am none the wiser what they would have done and at some point in the next 25 years they may well be in power. They may well be part of a left-leaning Government and the luxury will not be theirs to do nothing to make no decision. 
I think it is a very revealing insight into the challenge that the Greens have in considering this bill. The reasons for its delay and the need for haste are very well documented. I do not agree with Mrs King on many of the reasons that she offered for this but I think it is a very revealing insight into the way the Greens think on what they have previously said was a good bill but they did not like the process. Now it is an outrageous bill. 
I think it is a good bill. I look forward to the monument being completed and to the tunnel being built. It is not designed to solve Wellington’s transport problems but it is going to certainly not hurt. I support the bill.
Bennett David: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5574. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I would just like to echo the thoughts of the first two speakers and to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their hard work in getting this bill done in a timely way and also thank the officials who assisted us in that process who worked through tight time frames to enable this to happen. 
This bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill is as members have discussed something that is seen by most parties in this House as necessary. It is probably not the procedure that we would want to be followed in every case but special circumstances demanded this in this case to enable the park to be completed on time. I would like to thank the cross-party support that we had. I know the Green Party members will be voting against this but they were actually quite constructive within the select committee even though they will not vote for the bill. 
I think the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage needs to have a special thankyou as well. This is one bill where the public submissions made some really big changes in the sense that the public submissions in regard to consultation and involvement were actioned. You see those properties that were mentioned by the last speaker Grant Robertson and also the Tasman Garden Body Corporate—in regard to the barracks—now being included with distinct rights to be consulted during the process. So that is very important for them and it emphasises the way that the Minister has made this bill something that has worked with the community and within the national interest of getting this war memorial built. It is legislation that we believe will be effective and that listens and works with the community. We recommend it to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful Interception of Communications 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful Interception of Communications 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! What is wrong with certain members on the National backbench there? Honourable members I have received a letter from David Shearer seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Prime Minister’s announcement that he has requested an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debate is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. The test is a high one. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. Although the announcement of an inquiry may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional especially where the inquiry may take some time to finalise. 
Furthermore at the current time there is also a risk of a breach of the rule against referring to matters pending adjudication in the courts. For these reasons I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the business of the House for an urgent debate can be justified today. The application is therefore declined.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What initiatives is the Health Promotion Agency taking to assist the Government’s heart health and diabetes targets? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Health Promotion Agency is working with the Heart Foundation and Pharmac on a new national campaign raising awareness of the importance of a heart warrant of fitness cardiovascular disease assessment. This is an important preventative health activity. Encouraging more heart and diabetes checks is one of the Government’s six national health targets. 
Shane Ardern 
: What will the campaign involve? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: In addition to the national information campaign everyone who takes their car through Vehicle Testing New Zealand testing stations in October will get a leaflet encouraging them to get their heart checked. Buck Shelford is the face of the campaign and his message is this: “You’ve got a warrant of fitness for your car. Now get one for your heart.” I would certainly encourage all of the members of this House to get their hearts checked as well.
Young Jonathan: Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5496. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 E nga reo e nga mana e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I would like to mihi to the people from Ngati Whatua Orakei. It is a real privilege to stand here today to speak in support of this second reading of your Treaty claims settlement bill the Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill. Following the previous speaker Brendan Horan I think that I am the newest member of the Maori Affairs Committee and unfortunately I was unable to attend the select committee meetings regarding this bill but I heard that they were very forthright and colourful. 
I think that as Mr Horan has said it is great to see New Zealanders no matter where you come from and no matter what your background being able to participate in the formation of our future together. I think that today this is what we are celebrating here: the formation of our future together recognising and acknowledging the past—the grievance and hurt of the past—and seeking to bring some redress and forward momentum. That is very important for each and every one of us not only here in this House but also in Aotearoa New Zealand. I am not sure whether you know this but when this House is full people from every persuasion and from many nationalities are here representing the people of our nation coming here to speak and to bring their thoughts and contributions to the decisions that affect us in the future. So of course it is so fitting that it is here in this place that these settlement bills are debated presented and supported for that future. 
I would just like to acknowledge somebody who has had some history around all of this and that is Sir Douglas Graham whom I met a number of years ago. I met him only once but I was very impressed with his determination and passion for the Treaty settlement process to advance for the sake of tangata whenua. I want to acknowledge him here today in this House. 
Having heard my colleague David Clendon from the Green Party talking about the future vision of Ngati Whatua o Orakei I think it is great to hear those stories. You are here not just because of the past but because of the future and because of what you see as the possibility and the potential for your tamariki and for your hapu and people where you can go and what this will do to unlock the dreams that you carry and the potential that you see is possible for you. My hope and my prayer is that everything that you see in your heart you will touch with your hands and you will see it come to pass. I want to say that it is great to be here today. Welcome and thank you for being here. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.
Vote: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 14 
Green Party 14. 
Bill read a second time.
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5463. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that permission has been granted for a waiata. 
Waiata
Horan Brendan: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. It has been very interesting with this bill. There is no need for me to go over what has already been said this morning but Ngati Manuhiri’s work with Ngati Wai means that this settlement has created momentum for settlements throughout the upper North Island this being the first of the Ngati Wai settlements so it lays that foundation. I would say that the select committee process is robust and we certainly had a robust meeting with robust discussion when we were at Leigh. 
It was also a little bit sad because one of the Maori Affairs Committee members did not do her work and incited some young people who were there. So the day ended up with a lot of recriminations and allegations. It was disappointing that it came about like that but the end result again is that there is great healing to be done. I would like to acknowledge the work and the strong leadership of Laly Haddon and his team—so kia ora and good luck. New Zealand First supports this bill and we look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.
Harawira Hone: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Harawira Hone: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5475. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Tena koe. I was not going to speak on the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill but I got a text earlier this morning from somebody in Phuket up in Thailand. It says: “Get along to the House and tell Tame: ‘Don’t blow it while I’m away.’ I’ll be back for the third reading. I hope it is all still in our hands signed Naida Glavish.” Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Waiata
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I call her Catherine Delahunty. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I beg your pardon Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Ah I am sorry. It is early in the morning. Catherine Delahunty. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I am honoured to be called Eugenie Sage but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Catherine Delahunty.
Harawira Hone: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Harawira Hone: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5462. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Hoi no he tu poto tenei kia mihi atu ki a koutou o Waitaha i haere tawhiti mai i roto i a matou i tenei ra hei whai oranga mo a tatou nei tamariki mokopuna mo nga ra kei te haere mai. No reira e tika ana kia mohio hara tenei i te mutunga he timatanga noa iho. No reira tena koutou. Tena koe e te rangatira e kawe mai i tera whakaahua o to tatou tupuna koutou ano ra e toku iwi nga mihi atu ki a koutou. 
Thank you very much for allowing your boy Rawiri Wihapi to come up to Ngati Kuri to be our tumuaki—to help our kids. Thank you very much for allowing me to come down to Te Puke in my bad days of riding around with the Filthy Few. Hari ana kia kite atu i a koutou i tae ora mai i roto i a tatou tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
I am so glad to see that you have all arrived here safely to be amongst us so acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and to us all. 
]
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5462. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has to call. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Hone Harawira.
Wall Louisa: Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5497. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi ki nga whanau o Ngati Whatua. I want to acknowledge Grant Hawke in his absence also Joe Hawke and I mihi to you Sharon. Actually I mihi to the resilience of Ngati Whatua. It has been interesting. The Minister of Maori Affairs talked about how many hectares you have lost—31565. What I want to note is that 15 years post Treaty settlement you had less than 1 percent of your lands back. The progression to where we are now if we look at the history really did start in 1977 with Bastion Point so I want to mihi to the whanau who were strong enough to stand up to the Crown. From that we got the 1991 Orakei Act. In fact the fight for your rights has begun and has been happening for nearly 40 years. 
What I want to say about the Narrow Neck issue the 3.2 hectares is that it actually represents 0.01 percent of the land that you used to have. I think we have to acknowledge the generosity that Ngati Whatua has for the people of Tamaki-makau-rau—in fact for all of Aotearoa. It is this generosity that we see again and again from our iwi and hapu groups enabling us to settle our Treaty grievances and to move on. I cannot thank you enough actually as a member of Parliament. I want to thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes Parekura has just said thank you on behalf of all of us and I think we should thank you on behalf of the entire House because it is only through your acts of leadership that we as a country will move to a place where we will have full recognition of our indigeneity and of our mana whenua. So I want to mihi to all of you for coming and for enabling us to be a part of your journey. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to share with us the likely dates for the liquor legislation the Alcohol Reform Bill including the cut-off date for substantive amendments and whether or not he has been able to reach an agreement with the Minister in charge of the bill as to whether we will have a logically ordered debate or whether it is just going to be a free-for-all?
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point. I will indeed look into that. I suspect it may be a combination of both—that it may depend a little on whether or not a reasonably minor amendment can turn one bill into the other. But I think the issue is a legitimate issue and I am very happy to look at that further.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Well working backwards the Minister in charge of the bill of course was in a former role a lawyer so naturally likes order to be something that is to the fore in these matters and that would be the desire of the Government and I believe the House as a whole. What is intended is that the bill would likely come back into the House around 23 October for dealing with the Committee stage. I think there has been a request that the out-of-scope amendments be put in place by today and the Business Committee will have further consideration next week of all of the matters that would lead to a very ordered process around a bill that now has had perhaps its most controversial aspect already dealt with by the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 25 September the Government will look to pass the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The Government also intends to progress the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought this was the appropriate moment to do it. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 277(2) and ask you to do some investigation and come back to the House with a considered ruling on the point that I am about to raise. It turns on the interpretation of this Standing Order as to what a bill that is “the same or substantially the same in substance.” should be. I do not want to relitigate an issue from this morning. I want to clarify this for future circumstances. The question that I would like you to go away and turn your attention to is whether “the same or substantially the same” refers to the outcome a bill seeks to achieve or the means by which it seeks to achieve that outcome. The question that we were faced with this morning—and I want to make it clear that I am not relitigating that at all—was we had two bills in the ballot that sought the same outcome but had different means through which they intended to deliver that.
Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought this was the appropriate moment to do it. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 277(2) and ask you to do some investigation and come back to the House with a considered ruling on the point that I am about to raise. It turns on the interpretation of this Standing Order as to what a bill that is “the same or substantially the same in substance.” should be. I do not want to relitigate an issue from this morning. I want to clarify this for future circumstances. The question that I would like you to go away and turn your attention to is whether “the same or substantially the same” refers to the outcome a bill seeks to achieve or the means by which it seeks to achieve that outcome. The question that we were faced with this morning—and I want to make it clear that I am not relitigating that at all—was we had two bills in the ballot that sought the same outcome but had different means through which they intended to deliver that. 
 The interpretation that was placed on it this morning was that because they sought the same outcome they were the same and therefore there should be a pre-ballot to determine which of those bills went into the ballot. I want to be clear that I am not relitigating that process. What I am saying is that it would be useful for the future if we had a clearer ruling from the Speaker about whether or not it is actually the outcome or the substance of the bill that has to be the same in order for a pre-ballot to be conducted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point. I will indeed look into that. I suspect it may be a combination of both—that it may depend a little on whether or not a reasonably minor amendment can turn one bill into the other. But I think the issue is a legitimate issue and I am very happy to look at that further.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 20 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 25 September the Government will look to pass the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The Government also intends to progress the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to share with us the likely dates for the liquor legislation the Alcohol Reform Bill including the cut-off date for substantive amendments and whether or not he has been able to reach an agreement with the Minister in charge of the bill as to whether we will have a logically ordered debate or whether it is just going to be a free-for-all? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Well working backwards the Minister in charge of the bill of course was in a former role a lawyer so naturally likes order to be something that is to the fore in these matters and that would be the desire of the Government and I believe the House as a whole. What is intended is that the bill would likely come back into the House around 23 October for dealing with the Committee stage. I think there has been a request that the out-of-scope amendments be put in place by today and the Business Committee will have further consideration next week of all of the matters that would lead to a very ordered process around a bill that now has had perhaps its most controversial aspect already dealt with by the House.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5556. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 11 February 2013. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5556. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5556. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Jan Logie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I missed my vote. The Greens oppose and call for a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I think you just missed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh come on. Do it quickly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Righty-o. We will do it. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.