edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker David: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15538] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I suppose that there is one answer to a lot of the irrelevant statements made in the previous speech. It is of course that real wages—wages adjusted for inflation—have increased very substantially under this Government. In addition there has been substantial tax relief for families with children— 
Bob Clarkson 
: What about my tradesmen? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That member’s tradesmen have actually been doing very well over the last few years during the building boom. The ability of people to pay their bills has been enhanced under this Government. 
Clause 5 which is in debate at the moment does not say anything about giving people 6 months to pay their electricity bill. It is a response to the tragic circumstances last year when a lady’s electricity was cut off despite the fact that she needed it for running the electrical equipment that her life depended upon. It was cut off by the electricity company’s contractor. I am sure the company deeply regrets that action but the mistake happened and it had tragic consequences. 
When the Government looked at what its response was—because Governments have a responsibility to pass regulations to protect the public when that is appropriate; National members might scoff at all regulation but some regulation is necessary—it found that the Electricity Act was deficient and that notwithstanding that it was a terrible thing that should never have happened we did not have the right to stop it happening again. In the meantime we have developed voluntary guidelines and it looks like those voluntary guidelines are being adhered to by the electricity companies. But if that were not the case then it is proper that the Government should have the means to protect consumers from this sort of thing happening again. 
This bill creates a regulation-making power. It does not create regulations; it creates a regulation-making power. In the event of something like this happening again the Government in its role of protecting people from adverse consequences has the ability to regulate and to make sure that electricity companies have to do by law what they should really be doing anyway.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15534] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. 
The bill has two unrelated purposes. Clause 4 amends the definition of “low-use consumer” in the Electricity Act 1992 so that regulations can be made to enable an increased number of low-use electricity consumers to benefit from the low fixed-charge tariff option for domestic consumers. There is also the matter of the commencement date. So we are very very thrilled with this issue. 
I thank all my colleagues for doing the good work on this bill and I especially thank the Minister of Energy the Hon David Parker. I thank him for his vision and for bringing leadership on this bill to the House. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15533] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not stand up and rush the Committee and yell and carry on. I take a sensible call and I take my time and explain to the Committee my position. 
The commencement clause which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” is something that we in the National Party do support. Members will recall that we had some reservations initially when the bill was brought to the House. But we were thoughtful we had done our homework and we were confident that the bill should go to the Commerce Committee and that we would make the improvements necessary to be able to support the bill at this stage—and of course we do. So we will be supporting the commencement date which is “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We originally had some— 
Peter Brown 
: Sure? Say it with some conviction. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The New Zealand First immigrant from I think Britain is chipping. He is the last guy off the boat. The last guy off the boat is chipping. 
National members do support the commencement date. We did have some reservations when the bill was introduced because members will recall that Mrs Muliaga went through that quite stressful time when she was disconnected and that drove this whole legislation. Helen Clark said that the answer to the problem was to regulate. That is what the Labour Government does. Essentially if there is a problem it regulates and if there is a bigger problem it taxes. If there is an even bigger problem it does a U-turn and changes its mind. 
In this case the Government did not tax and it did not do a U-turn. It decided to regulate and we had some reservations at that time. But we were happy to support the bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee and I know that Labour members have been quietly thanking us in the corridors and lobbies for the changes we instigated at the select committee. 
So National members are in a position where we will support this bill and we will support the commencement date which we are talking about now. We will round in beside the Minister of Energy David Parker because the Labour members are not. They are all quietly turning away I guess from supporting Mr Parker. But National members will support him. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We’ll be there. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We will be there and we will support the commencement date. I wanted to make sure that the Committee was aware of that.
Mahuta Nanaia: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15531] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report the bill by 22 July and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15531] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15483] 
5.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What benefits will New Zealand exporters receive from the agreement on customs procedures that is part of the free-trade agreement with China? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 There will be good news for New Zealand exporters. For a start there will be greater certainty around the time it takes to clear goods through customs—no longer than 48 hours—which is a huge improvement and real time advantage to the current situation. In addition to this tariff benefits can be gained through more consistent transparent processes for exporters when dealing with Chinese customs administration. Overall this historic free-trade agreement leverages a huge first-mover advantage to New Zealand exporters which in time will deliver significant returns to New Zealand. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House what special arrangements there are to help exporters satisfy Chinese authorities that their goods will meet rules of origin requirements? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: New Zealand is setting up a system that will provide exporters with certificates of origin issued by approved organisations here in New Zealand. These certificates will allow exporters to claim duty-free treatment for their goods in China. These arrangements add to the certainty and transparency of customs procedures that our exporters will enjoy under the agreement.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15480] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I see that the Minister of Justice is away—how convenient. I seek leave to put this question off until tomorrow when the Minister will be here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Question No. 4 the Hon. Bill English. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please stop having a conversation amongst themselves and would the member please ask the question; otherwise it starts to create disorder.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15480] 
3.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received about the success of the Modern Apprenticeships programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The number of Modern Apprentices who either are in training or have completed their apprenticeship has reached over 15000. Our promise to the country during the last election campaign was to reach 14000 by December 2008. These latest data show that we reached 15000 by December 2007. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why did the Government decide to set up the Modern Apprenticeships programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because the previous Government abandoned apprenticeships in their entirety. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: “Rubbish!” they say. That was one of the—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh really? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It might be wise to intervene early in the process with Dr Nick Smith who has uttered a completely unparliamentary statement and we are only on to question No. 3. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please respect each other by allowing both questions and answers to be heard and by keeping comments to within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh sorry—would Dr Smith please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. It would help if the Minister told the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I say to Dr Smith that I am sorry but he knows what the Standing Orders are. The member is to withdraw and apologise and say nothing else. Otherwise it creates disorder which it just did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That abandonment was one of the most serious public policy mistakes of that inept National Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I certainly did not hear that answer; I hope others did.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Points of Order — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Points of Order — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
[Volume:646;Page:15477] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I rise to seek some clarification from you. Last night during the debate on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill the Speaker sought clarification from Mr Christopher Finlayson as to whether he should be referred to as “Chris” which is what the Speaker at the time had written in front of her or as “Christopher”. Mr Finlayson responded by saying: “I made it very clear when I came in here that out of respect to the House not out of respect to me I thought that I should be called by my full name.” 
The Maori Party has reflected on this matter regarding names in general and I now refer to  
Hansard 
 Volume 633 at page 4654 and a discussion on mispronunciation of Maori language and members’ names. The Assistant Speaker at the time Ann Hartley stated that the presiding officers had made a ruling. The ruling was: “To pronounce a word differently from the way in which another member pronounces that word is not a matter of order. There are many different ways to pronounce English words and I presume that this is true of Maori words too. No member in this House has the monopoly of directing how a word is to be pronounced. But if a member deliberately mispronounces a word—particularly another member’s name—so as to create disorder then that is out of order and the Speaker on the Speaker’s own initiative or on the matter being raised as a point of order will intervene.” 
The point we are raising in terms of names in the House is firstly that mispronunciation of words does cause offence and leads to misunderstandings. Secondly the presumption according to the Speaker’s ruling is that a Speaker in intervening has a level of competency in Maori language pronunciation that would allow that person to intervene appropriately. If this is not the case the Maori Party would respectfully suggest that the Speaker’s ruling of 2 August 2006 needs to be revisited. We request this as our members are continually offended by the mispronunciation of our names and we do not wish to continually cause delays in the House by raising points of order regarding this. We hope members of this House will demonstrate maturity by pronouncing correctly one of the two official languages of the country. 
In closing this I on behalf of the Maori Party like Mr Finlayson out of respect to this House wish to advise members that our names are: Tariana Turia Pita Sharples Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell. We implore all members of this House to call us by our proper names and pronounce them correctly. Tena koutou katoa. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I am sure all members have noted what the member said.
Points of Order — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
Points of Order — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
[Volume:646;Page:15477] 
Wednesday 9 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I rise to seek some clarification from you. Last night during the debate on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill the Speaker sought clarification from Mr Christopher Finlayson as to whether he should be referred to as “Chris” which is what the Speaker at the time had written in front of her or as “Christopher”. Mr Finlayson responded by saying: “I made it very clear when I came in here that out of respect to the House not out of respect to me I thought that I should be called by my full name.” 
The Maori Party has reflected on this matter regarding names in general and I now refer to  
Hansard 
 Volume 633 at page 4654 and a discussion on mispronunciation of Maori language and members’ names. The Assistant Speaker at the time Ann Hartley stated that the presiding officers had made a ruling. The ruling was: “To pronounce a word differently from the way in which another member pronounces that word is not a matter of order. There are many different ways to pronounce English words and I presume that this is true of Maori words too. No member in this House has the monopoly of directing how a word is to be pronounced. But if a member deliberately mispronounces a word—particularly another member’s name—so as to create disorder then that is out of order and the Speaker on the Speaker’s own initiative or on the matter being raised as a point of order will intervene.” 
The point we are raising in terms of names in the House is firstly that mispronunciation of words does cause offence and leads to misunderstandings. Secondly the presumption according to the Speaker’s ruling is that a Speaker in intervening has a level of competency in Maori language pronunciation that would allow that person to intervene appropriately. If this is not the case the Maori Party would respectfully suggest that the Speaker’s ruling of 2 August 2006 needs to be revisited. We request this as our members are continually offended by the mispronunciation of our names and we do not wish to continually cause delays in the House by raising points of order regarding this. We hope members of this House will demonstrate maturity by pronouncing correctly one of the two official languages of the country. 
In closing this I on behalf of the Maori Party like Mr Finlayson out of respect to this House wish to advise members that our names are: Tariana Turia Pita Sharples Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell. We implore all members of this House to call us by our proper names and pronounce them correctly. Tena koutou katoa. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I am sure all members have noted what the member said.
Goodhew Jo: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14813] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take what will be just a brief call. My colleague Dr Jackie Blue has outlined in this debate on clauses 1 and 2 of the Human Tissue Bill a lot of the detail that we went into in the Health Committee. It was an arduous task because for many of the committee and even for those of us with some form of history around the health professions there was the issue of the technology: a lot of jargon and a lot of things that we had to get our heads around in the bill. 
I want to say just very briefly that this bill I believe has had a secondary effect that we may not have expected of it: a lot of publicity has been generated around not just this bill but also Dr Jackie Blue’s member’s bill. There has been a lot of debate about how important it is that New Zealanders who are able to donate their organs come forward and do so and also that the one thing in essence that intending donors must do is to discuss their wishes with their nearest and dearest the people around them. Those people need to understand the person’s wishes so that in the unfortunate circumstance of the person becoming a potential donor it is clear to all exactly what that person would have as his or her own particular wishes. This publicity I understand has meant a slight jump in the number of donors in the last year. The number of donors is nowhere near the number that New Zealand needs whether they be live donors or people who have unfortunately died but nevertheless there has been a small jump in that respect. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14810] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14810] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to.
Shanks Katrina: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14806] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I stand tonight to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses the detection and recovery of debts and the misuse of social security payments student allowances and the student loan system and it seeks to improve and broaden data-matching provisions. 
This bill is really simple. It affects anybody who has broken the law and goes to prison. When those people who go into prison are receiving a student loan a student allowance or some type of benefit be it a sickness benefit or an unemployment benefit they are not entitled to that benefit while they are in prison. It is as simple as that. Currently what happens is that prisoners can say voluntarily that they are receiving a benefit they will be matched off and the benefit will stop. But obviously there is a flaw in the system currently which is that it is voluntary. Not many of the prisoners who are on a benefit go through and volunteer this information. There is a delay in the time matched to the benefit they receive which then means that an overpayment has been made. When those people come out of prison there is an overpayment a debt that is then owed by them to the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income. 
This is not a new issue; it has been around for a very very long time and only in 2008 is it now being addressed. Basically it is very simple legislation that matches data. It allows databases to be matched between the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Corrections the Customs Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. It matches the prisoner to the database so that the agency stops the payment from being made. It is as simple as that. 
I am taking just a short call tonight to say that National supports this bill. We think that it is a step in the right direction and it is just a shame that this bill has come so late.
Hutchison Paul: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14805] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill on behalf of National. Of course we are supporting it because this is one of the first times we have seen this Labour Government make some gesture towards being serious about the mounting debts we have in the system. 
It was quite extraordinary to hear Mr Fairbrother claim that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. Clearly he is in total denial. In respect of the raw data I tell member that when Labour came into office beneficiary debt owed by beneficiaries to the then Department of Social Welfare was in the order of $320 million and it has more than doubled in these 7 to 8 short years that Mr Fairbrother was talking about. That is disgraceful. That shows no signal whatsoever that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. 
We have just been hearing Mr Fairbrother wax lyrical about the computer systems that this Government—[ 
Interruption 
] That is none other than the chair of the select committee; I refer him to Project Socrates in the disability sector or perhaps the system of Tribal Education Ltd in the Ministry of Education. I ask any of the users of those computer systems whether they are working efficiently. They will tell us that the systems are an abysmal failure and that users are very doubtful about whether the Labour Government is investing wisely. Certainly it is not implementing efficiently. 
I was also interested to hear Russell Fairbrother say that this was a morally neutral bill. We heard the views of the Privacy Commissioner who said that her office does not oppose the proposal to override section 103 of the Privacy Act but it does note that this section provides a basic protection of the principle of natural justice when Government agencies operate automated information-matching systems. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was deeply concerned about the balance there. But there is no doubt that the bill itself does make efforts to minimise hardship when incorrect data-matching occurs. 
I will end by saying that the real emphasis is that at long last the Labour Government in its dying days is bringing in a bill to minimise debt and bring about debt prevention. This is long overdue. It is an absolutely classic example of just how hopeless this Labour Government has been in terms of looking after taxpayers’ money and of course in looking after beneficiaries. During this time the Government has allowed beneficiaries who are vulnerable enough as it is to get into a huge amount of debt—$760 million worth. As I understand it Peter Hughes mentioned a few years ago that 49 percent of beneficiaries were in debt to Work and Income but now the figure is 70 percent. So when Russell Fairbrother has the gall to suggest that this Government is operating efficiently he is in total denial.
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14799] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Congratulations on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker and I wish you well for your upcoming trip. I will make just a small contribution on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill went to the Government Administration Committee in September last year and there are 14 Acts amended in it. I will make a small contribution to what I think are very very important parts of this bill. 
In particular when we are talking about Part 6 which amends the Fisheries Act 1996 I want to highlight how the permit moratorium is currently not subject to the quota management system. At the moment the moratorium could actually lift part way through the fishing year which ends or starts on 1 October. Currently there could be a lot of fish caught in the small period leading up to 1 October so in essence there is a good amendment to ensure the system is in place and that the fishing stock is sustainable. 
The other contribution I will make is on Part 14 of the bill which amends the Veterinarians Act 2005. This will in effect give the Veterinary Council more power which is very important. In this House we probably do not appreciate the good job that veterinarians do around the country. Currently we have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand and the Labour Government is having to spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to attract them into New Zealand because we are not training enough of them. Government representatives are over at recruitment expos in the United Kingdom trying to attract veterinarians into the country. 
The significant point in this amendment is that the Veterinary Council will have more powers. In essence it will be a bit like a warrant of fitness regime. It will streamline the process when veterinarians are between graduation and registering and that is very very good. But I come back to the significant point. Although the primary sector—particularly the dairy sector—is booming we have a shortage of male veterinary students who are needed to deal with the big bovine animals. Currently there is a higher proportion of females coming through that course at Massey University. 
This is a 14-Act amendment bill that is supported by the National Party and we recognise the good work that the Government Administration Committee did under the very hard-working chair Shane Ardern. 
Bill read a second time.
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14793] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is meant to be a non-controversial bill so I am surprised that the previous speaker Darien Fenton has found occasion to take a little bit of grandstanding in regard to it. One would have to question whether in fact the provision is as non-controversial as she tried to make out or whether it is quite the contrary. Having said that one of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is the fact that because it is non-controversial it means that if any matters are raised that are questionable and will challenge the non-controversial nature of the change they are removed and do not proceed. One of those matters was the changes that were proposed in relation to the Companies Act. A submission was received from Chapman Tripp that raised a number of concerns around the provisions that it was suggested should be included in the bill in regard to the Companies Act. It was proposed that the bill should amend sections 224 and 223 to also require notice to a person who is entitled to a security interest in respect of which a financial statement is registered on the Personal Property Securities Register. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear— 
Hone Harawira 
: Settle down settle down! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I cannot help it. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear that it was not quite as non-controversial as it first appeared to be and so the matter was actually dropped out of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) forthwith. It showed that it is quite an important process and that people take notice of the process and make submissions. The submission from Graeme Edgeler raised his concerns but had no quarrel with the changes proposed and it was very interesting to see what his concerns were. 
Some of the other parts that are in here—and they are quite varied—are technical. They include amendments to the following Acts: the National Parks Act; the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Act; the Radiocommunications Act; the Reserves Act; the Historic Places Act; the Fisheries Act; the Veterinarians Act; the Criminal Investigation (Bodily Samples) Act 1995; the Crimes Act which has just been described by the previous speaker; the Cadastral Survey Act; and as I said before the Biosecurity Act. All of these Acts have had a number of minor amendments made to them and I do not think we need to go through them in any great depth. As has been explained previously these matters are non-consequential; they are really just technical amendments and National is happy to support the bill going through.
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14790] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts at one time. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority in their own right to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament and I thank them for that. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 21 February 2008 and I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful and expeditious consideration of the bill. 
The bill amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. The amendments proposed by the bill include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove an outdated reference to the death penalty which as we all know was abolished in 1989; and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 which substitutes the term “video record” for the outdated term “videotape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006 which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. The amendments proposed include an amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 to amend a drafting error and to remove ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence and imposes a penalty for the damage or destruction of a property in the control of the Historic Places Trust. 
There are also amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 to close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example that of lawyers and teachers. An amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will reflect changes in the terminology used in the armed forces. 
The select committee received only two submissions on the bill and it has reported the bill back to the House unchanged. To conclude this bill proposes a number of positive changes to the statute book that are minor or technical in nature. I again thank the select committee and the officials for their work and I commend the bill to the House.
te Heuheu Georgina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14783] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Swain Paul: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14783] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I was hoping for a bit of policy there from National and some knowledge of what it would do but that was a bit of a wasted effort. Never mind! I support the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a very good bill. It actually brings New Zealand into the 20th century. The 21st century will come up next year with potentially some new legislation. The bill simply allows transmission on other forms of technology including the Internet and cellphones. This is good legislation and it needs to be supported by the House.
Vote: Limited Partnerships Bill Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Limited Partnerships Bill Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:645;Page:14779] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Limited Partnerships Bill be now read a third time and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bills read a third time.
Swain Paul: Limited Partnerships Bill Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill — Third Readings 
Swain Paul: Limited Partnerships Bill Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:645;Page:14773] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was actually quite a helpful contribution from Lindsay Tisch in looking at the purpose of this legislation—it cut right to the chase. As the member says it is an attempt to encourage the development of venture capital funds in New Zealand which are important obviously for businesses particularly in the start-up phase. It is also important to bring us into line with rules that are set internationally so that we become a more attractive haven. 
The member mentioned the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund. I did not hear the bit where he said a good Labour-led Government introduced this— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I did say 2002. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I must have just missed that; I did not quite hear it at the time. Either the member forgot it or I was not listening. Perhaps just for the record I will say that it was a good Labour-led Government that introduced the fund. I remember when we came into Government in 1999 that one of the issues Cabinet faced was the point that the member made: internationally we had a very very low venture capital fund we were not a place where capital was being attracted to and we really needed to do something about that. A lot of work went on at the time in order to attract funds. The member said that relatively speaking to GDP investment was low and that is absolutely right. Hopefully if we get a regime like this in place that everybody recognises as the kind of regime that operates everywhere around the world then there may be an opportunity for more funds to be attracted here. 
So this is good legislation. The Commerce Committee worked well on it chaired ably by Gerry Brownlee and we are now in a position—hopefully—where as a result of it we are able to get more venture capital into New Zealand. The Law Society is suggesting that this is really important legislation: probably the next most important legislation after the changes to the Companies Act. The society is running a series of seminars around the country to encourage people to learn about the legislation and I encourage people to take part in those. It is good legislation operating with a good Minister in a good Labour-led Government and I certainly support it.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14770] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Building Amendment Bill without amendment and the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendmentbe agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14768] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on Part 2 “Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005” and schedules 1 and 2. 
I just make the comment that one of the great concerns that the Health Committee was faced with back in 2003-04 was the extraordinary dexterity with which manufacturers of illicit drugs would move when a drug was put on to the schedule; the manufacturers would immediately think of another isomer or add on another molecule to make the drug different and therefore legal. I am very interested to see the work of the committee members to try to cover as many of the derivatives of benzylpiperazine (BZP) as they could think of and the combinations and permutations of them that could be manufactured. Schedule 1 encapsulates not just benzylpiperazine but “TFMPP … pFPP … MeOPP … mCPP … MBZP” as well as the “isomers of the substances mentioned” the “esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2” the “salts of [those] substances” and “Substances containing any proportion of a substance mentioned in clause 2 3 4 or 5.” Indeed the committee has tried very hard to predict where the industry might try to make a preparation that would avoid the legislation. I think that is very important. The rapid rescheduling mechanisms were brought into the House back in 2003 and 2004 to go for the more serious types of drugs—in particular methamphetamine Ecstasy etc. There is no doubt that if one brings in this sort of legislation it is very important to cover all the possibilities that the sharp minds of illicit manufacturers may extend to. I think that is very important. 
I reiterate that it is a pity that the Minister does not support there being a review in 2½ years of the effects of this legislation. He dismisses the fact that the consequences of this legislation could be profound. I would be delighted if as the Minister suggested the scenario was that BZP its derivatives and party pills in general faded from the market in New Zealand. Sadly it is highly unlikely that will happen. That is why I thought it was so important that Parliament be required to relook at this measure in a couple of years’ time. It should not rely on the Minister coming up with a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He has had an opportunity over the last 8 years to carry out a review but he has miserably failed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14768] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Locke Keith: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14766] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Would it not make more sense to put Metiria Turei’s amendment first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That amendment relates to clause 2 which is some way down the line. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Clause 2 is the first clause referred to on Supplementary Order Paper 180 and Metiria Turei’s amendment is also an amendment to clause 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we are about to vote only on the Minister’s amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to this part. Ms Turei’s amendment will come later on in relation to clause 2—and we should be there shortly—but I am advised that it has no relationship to this part whatsoever. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14766] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendments are the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180.
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14759] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to make a brief comment. No one was slow-footed in this regard. What was happening was that the Government was authorising commissioning and paying for research into benzylpiperazine (BZP) that had not been taking place anywhere else in the world. The Government was following an evidence-based approach to drugs. I would recommend that approach to the member; it would stop her suggesting that water should be outlawed by the Misuse of Drugs Act! If she had done her research properly she would know things like that. That is— 
Mark Blumsky 
: That’s a silly argument. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may be a silly argument. That makes the member who proposed it pretty silly does it not? 
Mark Blumsky 
: This is not relevant. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is relevant. When someone wants to raise the issue of the Government commissioning research so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could be well advised in an evidence-based manner— 
Jacqui Dean 
: This is a serious matter. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I wish the member could take it seriously then. What the Government did was commission research that then advised the advisory committee in its decisions. I would recommend that the member show more commitment to an evidence-based approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction. If there were ever any possibility of any members opposite being responsible in Government they would have to get used to the idea that one does not have on the back of an envelope something that one wants to ban next week then turn up in the Chamber and try to do it. It does not work. 
I advise the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 177 in my name has been withdrawn and replaced by Supplementary Order Paper 180. Supplementary Order Paper 177 proposed to have an enactment date of 7 days following the Royal assent but I have been advised by the Attorney-General and by the Ministry of Health that on consideration they believe that it would be better to have a specific date. To have a date in the legislation provides for certainty around when the classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand and it is important to ensure that they are all certain of their obligations under the law. To have a date set in the legislation allows for greater clarity around this change of legal status of BZP. In addition a set enactment date provides more clarity to users of BZP and related substances regarding the exact date on which the amnesty period will expire. This amendment is designed to give certainty to those dates so that there is no lack of clarification about when legal obligations come into effect.
Simich Clem: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 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. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.