edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2004] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to detain the Committee but I want to under Standing Order 106 briefly avail myself of the opportunity to clarify a certain matter that the Minister may have misunderstood or that I may not have expressed clearly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member can seek a call later on. That is not a point of order but he can seek a call. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Standing Order 106 states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” With respect Mr Chairperson I say that there is a material part that I believe the Minister has misrepresented. I undertake not to introduce any new material. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: OK; proceed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is certainly my position that in my earlier remarks—and I am happy to check  
Hansard 
—I had not claimed that all of the measures in this bill were in the previous work programme. Indeed some measures were represented in an earlier bill but others were ongoing. I think we used either an official’s work programme or the Labour Party’s work programme. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That explains it. Thank you very much.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Transport Funding—Replacement of Regional Fuel Tax with Increased Fuel Excise Duty and Road-user Charges 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Transport Funding—Replacement of Regional Fuel Tax with Increased Fuel Excise Duty and Road-user Charges 
[Volume:653;Page:1974] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement made by the Minister of Transport to replace regional fuel taxes with national increases to fuel excise duty and road-user charges. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and it does involve ministerial responsibility. The announcement concerns a new development of national significance that I consider does require the immediate attention of the House. I call on the Hon Darren Hughes to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:1973] 
12.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe it was “necessary or expedient in the public interest” to grant a guarantee to FAI Finance Ltd as required by the Public Finance Act; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 One of the overarching principles of the retail deposit guarantee scheme is that the grant of a Crown guarantee to an entity must be necessary or expedient in the public interest where the public interest is either in the maintenance of public confidence in the financial system or in maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand’s financial institutions. The effect of this requirement has been that in the early stages of the guarantee those who are delegated to grant entry have been focused principally on maintaining public confidence in the financial system rather than only on credit risk. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he feel it adds insult to injury for investors who have lost money in the Hanover group of companies to now as taxpayers have to guarantee losses in FAI Finance Ltd which is a member of the same Hanover group? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can understand people having concerns about any number of the activities that have gone on in the financial markets but I stress that the point of the guarantee when it was brought into place was to maintain public confidence in the whole system. It has put those who are delegated to provide the guarantee in the situation of having to weigh up general public confidence on the one hand with the particular aspects of any individual applicant for the guarantee. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister advise the House what it was specifically about FAI Finance and its parent company Hanover Finance that convinced him that a guarantee for that company complied with Treasury policy guidelines for Crown guarantees of “the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and . . . maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any company that has the guarantee has it because it complied with the requirements. I think Parliament needs to keep in mind that the fundamental intent of the guarantee was to prevent a series of collapses of financial institutions for the reason that depositors felt their money was not safe and that has been a significant factor in determining who the guarantee applies to.
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:1972] 
11.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Can he explain what he meant in telling the New Zealand Community Boards Conference in Christchurch last Friday that the new drinking-water standards being implemented are “ridiculous“ and under review by the Government? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Of course I can. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister maintain that it is “ridiculous” for rural communities such as Cheviot in the Kaikoura electorate to expect safe drinking-water when Canterbury’s medical officer of health has warned that he will declare a public health emergency if the township’s supply is not urgently improved? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: On taking over the job as Minister of Local Government what I found to be “ridiculous” was that representatives of local government were coming to see me complaining about the tens of millions of dollars of cost being imposed on them by the previous Government. When I went back to Ministry of Health officials they disputed the order of magnitude of those costs. I have undertaken to get a proper assessment of the costs as I think is prudent and they will be put before us by 9 April. I have also written to the Minister of Health and said that in the meantime we should put this on a moratorium. I think that is quite reasonable. It is ridiculous to impose this cost without knowing what it will actually cost. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will maintain the $136 million in funding being provided over 10 years to assist small communities to achieve safe drinking-water standards? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: One of the problems we have with that is that it is another promise that the previous Government made without setting aside any of the money. The second problem is another one that we have constantly come across: the money that has been promised is woefully inadequate because the costs that local government has cited total $700 million—for example $56 million in Taupo $20 million in Thames-Coromandel and $20 million in Hauraki. What I am saying is that before proceeding we should get an assessment of what this will cost and what will be required.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:1967] 
6.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps has the Government taken to help individuals pay off their student loans quicker? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced that its voluntary repayment bonus would come into effect on 1 April this year. Under this policy student loan holders who make voluntary repayments totalling $500 or more across the year will be eligible for a 10 percent bonus. That means that if someone makes voluntary repayments of $1000 across the year the Government will deduct $1100 from his or her loan balance. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How does the scheme announced yesterday differ from the one announced prior to the election? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The scheme announced yesterday is a significantly expanded version of the one announced before the election. First of all voluntary repayments are eligible for the bonus regardless of how long after graduation the payments are made. Secondly student loan holders who reside overseas and are fully compliant with their repayment obligations will also be eligible for the voluntary bonus. Finally the bonus will not require the minimum qualifying payment of $500 to be made in a lump sum; instead it can be made across the course of the year. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister agree that it is likely to be people on higher incomes who are able to make additional student loan repayments and that these are the same people who will benefit most from next week’s tax cuts; if so can she explain why this Government is intent on giving cash to those on higher incomes rather than to those on low to moderate incomes who need it more? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government has been able to extend this proposal to allow students to make a continuous number of repayments throughout the year rather than one lump sum. I think that goes some way towards addressing the concerns the member has raised.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:1966] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a letter from Genesis Energy to the Electricity Commission which is the source of one of those quotes I used. The other is from Genesis Energy to the Rodney District Council and is the source of the other quote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to those two letters being tabled? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:1965] 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he have confidence in the board of Genesis Energy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the board of Genesis Energy when it told the Rodney District Council that it had “sufficient gas arrangements” to operate the proposed Rodney power station but told the Electricity Commission that it does not have “access to a sufficient secure forward quantity of gas” for it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am advised that the board of Genesis Energy has given the go-ahead for a consent to be sought but has not made any decisions about the building of that plant. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What advice if any has the Minister received from the chair of the board about the company’s Gasbridge project in New Plymouth to import liquefied natural gas to fuel its power stations which under international contracts would tie the price of electricity to the international price of oil? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unable to answer that. I do know that New Zealand is a very prospective country. There are lots of opportunities for new gas finds and this Government is encouraging people to go out and make those finds. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How can the Minister then have confidence in the board of Genesis Energy when it proposes to build the Rodney gas-fired power plant and the Gasbridge liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility which together will tie power prices for Kiwi households and businesses to the rising international price of oil under the contracts that govern LNG trade? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am advised that neither of those decisions has been made. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the chair of the board advised the Minister that Genesis Energy so far has spent $74 million of electricity consumers’ dollars just on planning for the power station but that it probably will not be built given its statement to the Electricity Commission that it should not consider the power station as “committed or likely in a real world commercial sense”; and does he think that that is prudent spending? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unable to answer that question because I do not know what conversations the Minister has had with the chair of Genesis Energy. But I do know that if it were not for Genesis Energy the lights would have gone out in this country last year. It was Genesis Energy’s e3p gas plant at Huntly that kept the lights on. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister saying that any future waste of electricity consumers’ money by that company is completely OK because it has a power plant that it built previously—underwritten by the Government on its gas contract—and that that entitles the company to do anything? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No.
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7251] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Clause 28 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill deals with written notification in regard to fines. In the time we have left which is very little sadly I find it interesting that a written notification has been put in place in respect of this part. We just debated this on another part and I will not re-enter the fray on that but it does not fill us with confidence. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Bennett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7230] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call in regard to the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his sterling effort in getting this bill through Parliament. I also congratulate members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the way they dealt with the issue. They basically looked at the bill from an objective point of view and tried to get the best solution for New Zealand residents and citizens. The issue predominantly affects a lot of urban centres not just Christchurch but also major centres throughout the country. This bill is the best we can do to deal with that issue. 
Opposition members have said they see a few holes in the bill but they had a chance for 9 years to address the issue; the member who has been talking for the last 10 minutes Clayton Cosgrove actually put up his own member’s bill a few years ago. Now he has had revelations about what he should have put in his bill but did not. He knows that the reality of what he has been talking about for the last 2 hours will not happen. This bill is the best attempt and the best solution we can get to the issue we are dealing with. Labour members know that are voting for it and know it is the best solution. We commend this bill to the House and congratulate all the officials who have helped us as well. We have been through many a different avenue to get to this result. I thank them for their time and effort as well. We support this bill to the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7210] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7198] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Regulations Review Committee consider the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 23 November 2009. 
Motion agreed to.
Hague Kevin: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7198] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. I note the comments of my colleague Rahui Katene to the effect that this type of legislation is normally of interest to only a particular kind of lawyer. I endorse that comment and note that I am no lawyer. I express my admiration for her response to that situation and indeed express my support for many of the measures that she advocated in her address. 
The Green Party is confronted with a dilemma with this kind of omnibus bill. It covers many measures that we find unobjectionable and support but several that we oppose. I have taken a brief call just to note that the Green Party is steadfastly opposed to the free-trade agreement with China and therefore has qualms about that set of provisions in the bill and also disagrees profoundly with the Government’s approach to biofuels so has some problems with the provisions of the bill in that respect. In that situation we have a choice: ought we to oppose the legislation because we oppose some provisions within it or ought we to support it going to the Regulations Review Committee while noting our opposition? In this case we take the latter course and we will support the bill going to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
[Volume:658;Page:7182] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a little perplexed by your statement that there was a Cabinet decision to support a particular bid. I am unaware of that.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
[Volume:658;Page:7182] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Cabinet decision to support a joint bid from the Maori Television Service Television New Zealand and TV3 for free-to-air television broadcasting rights for the Rugby World Cup 2011. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I consider it does deserve the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
[Volume:658;Page:7164] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say it is a matter that I am totally unaware of and therefore I cannot possibly comment on it. Normally I am not familiar with issues around access to the public gallery on any given day. I can certainly investigate whether anything untoward took place and I will do that for the honourable member.
Street Maryan: Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
Street Maryan: Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier today there were a number of people outside Parliament who were in support of the petitions regarding adult and community education and who sought access to the public gallery in order to be here to hear their petitions presented to the House. They were denied access. They are petitioners and I seek your ruling on this matter.
Horomia Parekura: Obituaries — Mate Huatahi Kaiwai 
Horomia Parekura: Obituaries — Mate Huatahi Kaiwai 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move a motion without notice or debate. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: E te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare nei tena koe. Ka whakatau au  
Kia whakapuakina e te Whare tona tino aroha mo tetahi o nga tino kuia morehu o Te Tai Rawhiti Ngati Porou kua hinga atu a Mate Huatahi Kaiwai iwa tekau ma wha ona tau; te wahine nei i kaha ki te manaaki i te rangatahi me te tautoko i to tatou reo Maori; he kaiarahi a ia o Te Taura Whiri me nga ropu katoa e tautoko ana i te ora o te reo Maori me tona kura o Hukarere; ka pa pouri te motu nei me nga Maori mo te ngaro o tenei wahine te tamahine o te Honore Ta Apirana Ngata. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I move  
That the House express its deep sadness in respect to a great surviving old lady of Ngati Porou East Coast who has passed away Mate Huatahi Kaiwai who was 94 years old; this woman was a strong supporter of youth and of our Maori language; she was patron of her school Hukarere and a figurehead of the Maori Language Commission and of all other organisations that supported the revival of the Maori language; the nation and Maoridom grieve for the loss of this woman the daughter of Sir Apirana Ngata.] 
It is with regret that I inform the House of the passing of one of the great Maori women leaders in this country. Mate Huatahi Kaiwai who was 94 years old has passed on. This woman was the strongest proponent for supporting youth and an unstinting supporter of the Maori language. She was the patron of Hukarere College of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and of other Maori organisations that developed te reo Maori. We grieve for this great wahine the daughter of the late Hon Sir Apirana Ngata. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Scotland—Presiding Officer Scottish Parliament 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Scotland—Presiding Officer Scottish Parliament 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Scottish Parliament led by Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s Gallery be welcomed also. 
Mr Alex Fergusson accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7195] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; and the introduction of Government bills.  
This motion is moved in order to gain extra sitting hours to enable the House to consider a number of bills that members of this House and outside groups have indicated they are keen to see passed as rapidly as possible. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7245] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 This is what I do not understand: if a member admits that there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed why would the member table a Supplementary Order Paper that reopens it? If a member wanted to strengthen the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill why would the member put in a Supplementary Order Paper that weakens it? That is what Supplementary Order Paper 75 does. It really underscores the confusion that Labour members have concerning this part of the legislation. The Labour minority report from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said that this bill would amend the situation around section 129. It does no such thing; the provisions in section 129 that relate to the owner and offender remain. There is the mandatory confiscation of the car if the owner who was an offender commits a second offence. The member Clayton Cosgrove by his own admission said there was a loophole: people were selling cars to each other and they were transferring ownership willy-nilly. This part of the bill will fix that. Why he would raise a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes that I do not know. It would also put the vehicles back on to the market. Who is the market for illegal street racers’ vehicles? It is illegal street racers. So what are we going to do? We will have the situation where cars are completely recycled and I cannot see that as being an improvement whatsoever. So we really have to shoot the Supplementary Order Paper down in flames and see it for what it is: a confused response by a confused party to very clear legislation that will improve things. 
I also strongly endorse the Minister of Police’s comments around the number of cars that are crushed. How can a party possibly think that a high number of crushed cars is success? Surely the opposite applies. The magic number would be zero because that would mean we had improved compliance and reduced illegal street racing. For that reason I cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 75 and I strongly support Part 1 of the bill.
Collins Judith: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7244] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It was very interesting to hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove speak. He has taken the last two calls in this debate on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and has talked particularly about his Supplementary Order Paper 70 which proposes mandatory confiscation of a substitute’s vehicle—that is a vehicle owned by a third party—after a second offence. 
What he failed to mention in his last two speeches was that his Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to omit the provision for the destruction of cars of recidivist boy-racers or illegal street racers. He has forgotten to tell the very good people who are listening to this debate that he is too scared to send these cars off to the crusher. Apparently it is all to do with the fact that he does not want to have stunts. It is a bit rich for that member to talk about stunts or strutting. I think we have all seen quite a lot of that from him. 
This bill tidies up the loopholes left by the previous Government’s legislation which was championed by the member who has just resumed his seat Clayton Cosgrove. That legislation had the best of intentions but it did not work because it had loopholes that one could drive a Mack truck through and still not touch the sides. National has listened to the people. I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair David Bennett in particular for the work it has done on this bill. This bill has come back to the House with amendments. I am surprised at the member Mr Cosgrove who is now speaking so passionately about the bill because he did not once attend a select committee hearing or listen to one of the submissions. If he was so interested in the bill he would have attended the select committee but he did not. Instead we now have a Supplementary Order Paper from Mr Cosgrove that simply does not deal with the issue. 
The police are looking forward to this bill coming through in its entirety. They are particularly looking forward to having provisions with some teeth in them. We would like to see no cars crushed because that would mean that this bill has done its job of stopping unwanted behaviour. 
This bill is not about retribution; it is about public safety and about listening to the people. I believe that Part 1 goes some way towards giving back to the people of Canterbury Hamilton Lower Hutt Dunedin Palmerston North Rotorua South Auckland and now west Auckland some of the power to have their roads used for legitimate purposes.
Bennett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7241] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A few bald patches in this building! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is the pot calling the kettle black is it not? At least I am not trying to cover mine. There is a bit of fertiliser going around this Chamber as well I would say. 
The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill is a companion bill to the one we have just debated the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. It is a companion bill because together they deal with the issue of boy racers. As Tau said it is part of the wider whanau and how we are working together across all parties in this Chamber on this issue. 
It is unfortunate that the largest Opposition party which is all it is at the moment has not been able to support this bill in the nature it supported the previous bill. That is to the detriment of this Chamber and of that party. It shows that those members are not serious about trying to find a solution to these issues. They are trying to over-politicise issues that the Government has made serious attempts to fix. 
This bill has a number of parts to it but one key bit is the crushing of vehicles. That is what it will be known for as a bill but that is not the only thing that this bill deals with. However it is something that many people will consider to be this bill’s legacy. If we look at Part 1 of the bill we see that it basically deals with confiscation and destruction. Those are covered by new sections 129A to 129F of the Sentencing Act 2002 inserted by clause 8. They deal with some of the key elements of that concept of confiscating and crushing vehicles. There are a number of other offences in this legislation that deal with things such as the sale and disposal of motor vehicles and conditions on the dismantling deregistration and confiscation of vehicle. Essentially Part 1 deals with the heart of the legislation in the sense that it refers to the confiscation and deregistration of a vehicle and the potential for the dismantling and destruction of a vehicle in certain cases. That is the nature of the legislation. It has a process that one has to go through. 
This bill is part of the suite of legislation we have put together to deal with the boy-racer problem. We support it in this Chamber and we look forward to the parties in this Chamber supporting it so we can deal with the issue once and for all for the good people of New Zealand. Thank you.
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7236] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am glad I was part of this bill. I want to thank Steven Joyce; David Bennett the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and a good chairperson he is too—Nicky Wagner who went out of her way to collect many many signatures; and Paul Quinn as well. Nicky Wagner went out and collected many many signatures because this was an issue particularly in Christchurch. 
I want to talk about the meaning behind this bill. This bill is about reducing harm reducing the nuisance reducing disorder and reducing antisocial behaviour. It has nothing to do with noise. If it had something to do with noise then fellows like me and my mates in South Auckland in the best part of the 1970s would have been done for making too much noise. There would have been legislation all over the place about making noise. It is not about noise. It is about reducing harm to the community. I know that those people who get up and talk about noise are getting a wee bit old. They cannot handle the sounds that the little Honda Civics and Nissans make. Some of us can handle the noise that the V8s and the Fairlane 500s make going up the street. I know that it is a long time since we heard that big grunty sound. The issue is about the harm and the disorder that is created around the use of vehicles today. 
What I like about this bill is that it states that a licence is a privilege not a right. When somebody gives us a privilege we have certain responsibilities: to act nicely and to act within the law. If people do not act within the law then their licence should be taken away from them. I like the idea of a licence as a piece of property belonging to the agency. Licences do not belong to individuals they belong to the agency and it is a privilege for individuals to hold that piece of property until they no longer need it or they have transgressed and they have to give back that property because they have stepped over the mark. 
So I think this is a good bill. Obviously to some people it will not be the biggest Christmas present they have ever had but it does go a long way to reducing harm nuisance value and disorder and everybody knows what comes from disorder. The bill is also about reducing antisocial behaviour. I too commend the bill to the House.
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7233] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I also thank the Minister officials and other committee members for the work they have done on the bill. 
This bill is about making our roads safer. It gives police and transport agencies greater powers. It is all about tackling illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it. It is also about what happens in the aftermath of illegal street racing—the litter the broken bottles and the alcohol-fuelled hoon-like behaviour. It is about the terrorising of residents. We heard from moteliers from Bealey Avenue about how it had affected their businesses: the negative impact on their businesses and the fact that their clients had had disturbed sleep. 
We heard about mob-like attacks on police officers. In January this year Christchurch Hospital had to move its patients from the front part of the hospital which was by the street to the back of the hospital. That was a major disruption for a service like that. We heard unfortunately of a number of deaths that have occurred from illegal street racing. On average 137 crashes a year result in injury or death caused by this activity which involves mainly younger people. These are unnecessary deaths and that is a tragic waste of human life. This bill will stop the menacing cruising behaviour by boy and girl racers and the intimidation of residents and pedestrians. 
The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which will allow a 28-day vehicle impoundment period for the offence of failing to stop when requested is a good measure. We were quite astonished to hear in the select committee that the police were very concerned that the youth driving these vehicles did not stop when asked to; they sped off and played cat and mouse and flouted the law with no respect for the law whatsoever. Clearly the current penalty of 35 demerit points and a fine of no more than $10000 is not working and I am confident that the 28-day impoundment provision will send a clear message to these street racers that this Government is serious. I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7229] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subsequent to discussions among the whips earlier this afternoon relating to the House programme I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 5 to be postponed until after Government order of the day No. 7.
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7221] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7216] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7214] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Where are the Noise Off people when we need them? Oh suddenly it is much quieter; that is great. I will make only three points. Of course the first point to make to the Opposition member Clayton Cosgrove is that the previous Labour Government did have 9 years in which to take action on this particular issue and finally just before it left office it changed the law so that the noise limit for new vehicles entering the fleet would drop to 90 decibels. Of course at that time the Labour members had the opportunity to set that limit for all vehicles if they felt so inclined which of course they did not. So that did not happen. 
The second point I will make perhaps particularly to Mr Burns is that there is a difference between primary legislation and road rules and that any change in vehicle noise limits is subject to a road rule not to primary legislation. Apart from anything else that is a practical reason why noise limits are not specifically addressed in the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. 
The third point I will make is that the process we are addressing here in the bill is all about tackling the behaviour that creates the noise as much as we can. We know that successive Parliaments have tried to do that and have had a limited effect sometimes with more effect than at other times. Tackling the behaviour involves is a combination of changes to the law and operational activity by the police as well. We are giving the police a tool box under this legislation that we think will make a significant difference. If we are dealing with noise in the avenues in Christchurch we are dealing with antisocial behaviour by illegal street racers. That is what we are dealing with. We have to deal with that behaviour. The way to deal with that behaviour is to hit those people where it hurts which is with regard to their licences and their vehicles and that is what this bill and the companion bill set out to do. 
I am pleased that Labour is supporting this bill because it knows that it will have an impact. I think that the sooner we get this legislation passed and the sooner we get it into the Christchurch market place and around other parts of the country the better we will all be at dealing with illegal street racing and the related noise.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7211] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate includes schedules 1 and 2.
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5;. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7204] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of comments in response to previous speakers. Firstly with regard to police enforcement of the proposed new law the police budget for road policing has been increased by 16 percent over the next 3 years—as opposed to what happened during the last 3 years—subject to agreement between the police the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Minister. That agreement will allow the police to enforce the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and to go about the rest of the road-policing programme. 
The second point I will make in respect of enforcement is that one of the points of this legislation is to provide the police with sharper tools so that things and perhaps boy racers stay where they are put. It tries to address and I think it will go a long way to addressing operational issues that have arisen from previous legislation. We went to Christchurch sat down with police and got their opinions on measures relating specifically to illegal street racing. We then had good discussions with transport officials justice officials and members of the police in Wellington about the approaches that would make a difference. The result in the transport sense is this bill. It has a total of 15 changes and includes such things as demerit points. 
In terms of the definition of “cruising” I think it has been improved by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is now pretty straightforward. I fail to see how somebody parking a car could be caught under that definition. I fail to see how a vintage car enthusiast could be caught under that definition. Of course the police are not going around hauling people off the streets for the sheer sake and enjoyment of it. The definition states: “ ‘Cruising’ means driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or (b) creates a convoy that—(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and (ii) impedes traffic flow”. It is one of those things that we know when we see it and we can see it in the four avenues in Christchurch and in Victoria Street in Hamilton on any night of the week. This legislation will give the councils and the police a tool so that they can to work together to get rid of that antisocial behaviour.
Bennett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7201] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. This bill is one that many people around the country have been looking forward to for a long time. It will be something for which the Government will take a lot of credit in being able to work towards providing some solutions to the many New Zealanders who feel their lives are intruded upon by those who engage in activities that predominantly disrupt their nights. 
I thank the Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the way they worked on this bill. It was a committee that worked well. Even though there may have been some disagreements and different points of focus the committee members worked well together and constructively to get the best result for New Zealand’s residents so I say thank you to those members who did that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh there’s more? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes there is more. I say to the member across the Chamber that I am sure there will be more from his electorate as members of the Canterbury community will take great delight in seeing this bill go through the Committee. 
Let us look at some of the key concepts of this bill. In Part 1 the definition of “cruising” is an important definition. There is also quite a focus on by-laws as a mechanism to achieve the goals that have been seen to be needed in regard to the ability to control activities in these circumstances. There is also a lot of talk about closing some of the loopholes that may have existed in the past which may have been used by drivers to avoid the full force of the law. Those measures are predominant in this part. There are prohibitions on the sale and disposal of motor vehicles to close the loopholes that were being used in the past. 
Overall Part 1 is quite a substantive part. It covers the major concepts of the bill which both major parties will be supporting and which reflects the community’s desire to have real action on this issue. We congratulate the Minister of Transport on bringing that action forward at a time when the public desires it.
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the House 
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7200] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I need to have a temporary Speaker. I ask whether Mr Twyford would like to act in the role of temporary Speaker while I go outside the House in preparation for the Committee.
Hughes Darren: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7196] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be giving its full support for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. As Mr Brownlee has said this is a bill that is required once or so a year in order to give effect to regulations that would otherwise lapse. The general policy statement in the bill reads: “The bill confirms and validates certain subordinate legislation that in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” 
This is a technical measure. It will be referred to the Regulations Review Committee as is proper to make sure that the respective clauses do indeed set out to do what the House requires. We will be supporting its passage through the House this afternoon. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7195] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 21 October notwithstanding urgency and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7195] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.