edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14609] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Tu ana au ki te tautoko i nga mihi o te Whare nei ki a Ngati Manawa a Ngati Whare. 
[ 
I rise to endorse this House’s acknowledgments to Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare 
.] 
I am very pleased to stand briefly in the House today to lend my support to a long-awaited settlement bill the Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill. We are dealing with areas that may mean very little to some but to others it means a hell of a lot. When we talk about areas like Murupara Te Whaiti Minginui and Whirinaki we are talking about an area that has helped house thousands of New Zealanders. In that respect alone we should tip and doff our hats to the local people of those areas. Not many of us have ventured into those areas. Those I know of have come out alive and better for the experience. I can remember back in 1977 when I was just a very young lad being taken to Murupara by my teacher Bill Tawhai for a wedding. There was nothing strange about that wedding other than I got to listen to the third test I think between the All Blacks and the Lions in the church with a little earpiece. 
As I have spoken of many times before in this House this is but a small offering that the Government of the day can make in response to some horrendous things that have happened. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be able to work with the other side of the House as well to get settlements—meaningful settlements—moving as fast as possible. My colleagues Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia have said that no matter what we come up with and what we settle on it pales into insignificance next to the hurt of those we are trying to settle with. 
Like I said I will be brief but one thing that really worries me about the settlement process is who learns from it. Today at home I opened up the  
New Zealand Herald  
and there was a public notice for the AGM of what I found out was the Ngati Whare Trust but the  
New Zealand Herald  
had “Ngati Trust”—it was the AGM for “Ngati Trust”. Obviously it might have been a typo; it might have been an innocent mistake. But an innocent mistake can be a huge mistake when the public notice is so meaningful to the local people. Although we are part of the 21st century and although we are about to see the progress of a settlement bill it still happens. 
I say to the people in the gallery Ngati Whare and Ngai Manawa that we will do our best on the Maori Affairs Committee to make sure this legislation has a fast and safe passage. I am looking forward to coming back to Murupara when we have the select committee hearings. 
No reira e te Whare kei a koutou e aku rangatira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
So to you the House and my chiefs greetings acknowledgments and salutations to you all 
.]
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14599] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14585] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Unfortunately the previous speaker Mr Mallard has been looking for bogeymen under the bed and I am afraid he has found a very small and lame bogeyman. His argument I am afraid is clearly not working in the House however much as he might try. It is worth noting that the Government Administration Committee worked very cooperatively on this bill and it was at the eleventh hour that Mr Mallard chose to come in and look for something to criticise in this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rubbish! I heard the first few submissions. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I want to raise a couple of points in rebuttal. The first is the scope— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should have turned up to the committee. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: What did that member say? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should have turned up and listened. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So this member should have turned up and listened? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At the first meeting. 
Paul Quinn 
: Point of order— 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Are you raising a point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he’s asleep. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: OK. I continue by saying that Mr Mallard has been the one member who has not worked cooperatively on this bill. I think he is trying to make the point that perhaps the legislation gives the Minister unfettered power. Clearly that does not exist in this legislation; it exists only in the member’s imagination and the argument will not fly in this House. 
I also refer to the issue of cruise ships which under this legislation will be regarded as floating accommodation. There will be no open access on to cruise ships while they are docked in Auckland Harbour or in other places around New Zealand. Cruise ships will be allowed to serve liquor but will not be allowed to provide gaming. The select committee looked at this issue very carefully but was unwilling to go against the spirit of the Gambling Act. Indeed the committee considered the issue of the extension of gaming to be outside the scope of this bill. So contrary to what Mr Mallard would have us believe the committee considered—when we were having constructive discussions—it to be outside the scope of this bill. This is a good bill and the select committee worked proactively on it. 
A successful Rugby World Cup is vitally important for New Zealand’s global brand and for our economy. Finally I put in a plug for the North Otago Rugby Football Union which has really seized the day with the opportunities that will be presented by this Rugby World Cup opportunity. The union is hosting the World Golden Oldies Rugby Festival during the course of the Rugby World Cup. It is that kind of regional initiative which I hope will be replicated all around New Zealand that will make this tournament such a success and will be expedited by the very good work contained in this bill. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14559] 
11. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is Housing New Zealand Corporation doing to identify and address fraudulent behaviour by some tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The overwhelming majority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants appreciate their home and abide by the rules. However there is a small minority who access homes and subsidies under false pretences. Over the last 2 years the Housing New Zealand Corporation has built a highly effective team of expert investigators. The team has identified $6.3 million worth of subsidised rent that tenants were not entitled to. In fact 166 Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancies were ended following investigations of more than 130 cases of tenant-related fraud that have been before the courts. That is a tenfold increase in investigations and cases before the courts compared with 2 years ago. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What kinds of activities have some Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants been undertaking that have led to action being taken against them? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: There are two examples that the previous Government would have allowed. One example is that an Auckland man failed to declare that he was running a large motor vehicle repair business. He also owned three rental properties and was living with a partner. He has been sentenced to 5 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work and a debt of $68000 is now against his name. Here is something else that the previous Government would have tolerated: an Auckland woman who had lived in her State house for 6 years deliberately disguised her employment by using numerous false identities. During her tenancy she also purchased six taxis and two investment properties and got married none of which was declared. She has been prosecuted for fraud and she paid $50000 at the time of sentencing to avoid prison. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why has the Housing New Zealand Corporation increased its investigation resources and activities over the last 2 years? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: There is no secret that the demand for Housing New Zealand Corporation property outstrips supply. Currently we have over 4000 people on the waiting list who have been classified as high priority to be housed. In our view we would rather provide State houses to people who have genuine need than turn a blind eye to fraud as happened under the previous Government.
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14553] 
6. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing for young offenders? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Fresh Start legislation is now in place with the first 10 youth offenders beginning military activity camp last week. This Government is serious about dealing with this country’s worst young offenders by giving judges access to tougher sentences and working intensively to address the causes of offending. This is their last chance to avoid a life behind bars. If we can save a few of these young offenders it is better than saving none at all because it means we are saving victims. 
Hekia Parata 
: How is Child Youth and Family working to improve data sharing with other Government agencies? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Child Youth and Family along with the New Zealand Police have recently implemented the police Youth Offending Risk Screening Tool. This means that police information will be electronically attached to Child Youth and Family records. It is great to see that after just 2 years in Government we are getting police and Child Youth and Family to share more information. 
Hekia Parata 
: What support is there for the community and grassroots providers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Today I am announcing that this Government is funding 14 new community programmes to tackle youth offending through the $4.5 million Fresh Start Innovation Fund. We are backing communities to address youth justice issues locally by finding new effective ways of dealing with their young offenders.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14555] 
8. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many houses have been retrofitted through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: The Warm Up— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Desperate for patsies today! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They do not like it when we are doing good stuff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that when members interject Ministers are at some liberty to respond but today has got just unnecessarily disorderly and I am not at all happy with the way questions are being answered. I must make that very clear. I ask the Minister please to answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Warm Up New Zealand scheme started only on 1 July 2009 but in 15 months over 76000 houses have been made warmer drier and healthier under the scheme. Fifty-five percent of those 76000 houses are those of low-income families and I think it shows that this practical Government is helping low-income families to reduce their power bills make their homes safer and reduce their emissions. It is making them healthier as well as reducing their power bills. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How does the Warm Up New Zealand scheme compare with the previous Government’s home insulation scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The rate at which houses are being insulated for families is five times the rate that was achieved under the previous Government— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Five times. Rather than having 76000 homes insulated if we had continued at the very slow rate under the previous Government we would have achieved only one-fifth of that number. I think that just shows how committed this Government is to practical measures that will help low-income families and reduce emissions and it also shows the very balanced approach of the Government to helping both the economy and the environment.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14550] 
4. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress is being made in providing faster cancer treatment to New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 As the House will be aware reducing waiting times for cancer treatment is one of the Government’s top priorities. Next year that target wait-time will reduce from 6 weeks to a world-standard 4 weeks. The Government is today investing almost $4 million extra into the cancer centres to help provide faster treatment for patients. This extra investment will mean that for example patients at the MidCentral District Health Board’s cancer centre are expected to start their radiation treatment at least 5 days sooner and those at the Waikato centre at least 2 days sooner; the Auckland centre will be able to see up to five extra patients a day; and the Southern District Health Board centre will see an extra 10 patients a day. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other initiatives has the Government established that provide faster cancer treatment for New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As part of last year’s election policy the Government promised to fund 12 months of Herceptin treatment for women with HER2-positive breast cancer. I can advise the House that the monthly treatment volumes increased from 19 in December 2008 to 234 in June this year meaning 400 women received publicly funded Herceptin. The shorter cancer waiting-times and the increased numbers of women benefiting from Herceptin treatment are further examples of improving front-line services under this Government.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban Labour 
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban Labour 
[Volume:667;Page:14543] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Winifred Alexandra Laban resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Friday 15 October 2010.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14488] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now rise for the evening having sustained excellent progress. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted.
Dyson Ruth: Tabling of Documents — Aged Care—Labour Green and Grey Power Report 
Dyson Ruth: Tabling of Documents — Aged Care—Labour Green and Grey Power Report 
[Volume:667;Page:14543] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the Labour Green and Grey Power report into the future of aged care containing 14 recommendations for the Government to consider. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14487] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will not take a long call. However I want to raise an issue with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs. If she could respond to it maybe in the third reading that would be very helpful. It is to do with the appointment of members to the Waikato River Authority. The legislation is very explicit in terms of the method by which the Minister for the Environment and local government select their members. Just as a point of clarification it would be helpful to know this with regard to where iwi appoint members as those appointments do not necessarily coincide with the election cycles of particular trust boards. 
My question is that if a member is elected to a trust board and is nominated to sit on the river authority and then an election takes place and that person is no longer a member of the trust board does he or she continue to finish that term? It is not a big issue but it could become a point of contention for tribal members who may not have confidence in that member who is nevertheless representing their interests on the trust board. I just raise that question as something that might potentially be considered for response in the third reading. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s view—even though it is not clearly expressed in the legislation—reflected in order to interpret the intent of the discussions that have taken place. I think it is a very important issue because we know that the cycles of membership of trust boards are as tumultuous as our cycle here in Parliament and politics often gets in the way of good representation. 
Notwithstanding that issue it is my sincere ambition that any members appointed to the river authority will do the best job that they can on behalf of their iwi. Should they no longer be elected to represent their iwi by sitting on their trust board that should not affect their term in office. But as I say politics often gets in the way. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s thoughts on that particular issue. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 169 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14486] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I will just briefly reiterate the great points that have been made by the two previous speakers Maryan Street and Kelvin Davis. The Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill is about modernising and making sure that the highway forward is recognised by the nation. Certainly the co-governance framework is about that. Last night we heard some huffing and puffing about why this bill was dangerous and excessive for this country. I forgot to commend the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee Tau Henare last night. I wish to do that tonight and congratulate him on the way he guided the committee under the co-governance that generally happens in select committees to ensure we got to a better place with this bill. 
I suppose the purpose of the Waikato River Authority is to set the primary direction for the vision and strategy to achieve the restoration and protection of the river. We have heard about all the relevant issues. Those people whom I heard in the media today scaremongering about this type of management are up the tree to be quite frank. If we cannot move as we modernise ourselves—we have seen a super-city formed in this country in which some people have been appointed without going through any election process—then it should be not too right for people to suggest that this legislation is the wrong thing to do. Its purpose in the purest sense is as a great mechanism to condition us for the way forward. 
These people are aligned with and live with this river. The river is the people and the people are the river. It needs to be recognised that Tainui-Waikato has paved the way in the first instance and that their whanaunga up the river have decided to collectively come together. That is something that is very very important for this nation. I really commend and support this bill.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Amendments agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14483] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14483] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14478] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak in support of the first reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. The bill will make amendments to the provisions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 along with implementing the Government’s policy on Queen’s Counsel currently known as Senior Counsel. 
The Act changed the rank of Queen’s Counsel by renaming it Senior Counsel. It also relaxed the eligibility for the appointment of Senior Counsel to all lawyers specialising in advocacy regardless of the form of their practice. This bill is an important step in reinstating status and independence for the top rank of lawyers in New Zealand. The eligibility to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel will be restricted in most cases to barristers sole rather than lawyers in partnerships or firms. Amendment to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will simplify the selection process and appointment of Queen’s Counsel while providing for consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association on proposed appointments. The amendment preserves the Governor-General’s power under the royal prerogative to appoint other lawyers as Queen’s Counsel from time to time in recognition of their contribution to the law. Queen’s Counsel should be able to advise and represent fearlessly and independently both law firms and clients who engage them without the potential conflict and pressure of working in a partnership or incorporated firm. 
We have listened carefully to the legal profession and this is a response to their concern that the title of Senior Counsel created in 2008 under the previous Government does not adequately reflect the nature and status of the rank. The title of Queen’s Counsel is instantly recognised as providing a certain standard of legal advice both among the New Zealand public and internationally. We are taking steps to protect the essential independence of the inner bar. The looser rules for eligibility as Senior Counsel introduced by the previous Government threatened to dilute the independence of our most senior advocates. I commend this bill to the House.
Katene Rahui: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14477] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party supports any legal changes that will ensure that barristers who generally are appointed to conduct court work on behalf of the Crown have the title of Queen’s Counsel restored. In many ways it is simply stating what is already the case: if one is working on behalf of the Crown then that work should be recognised appropriately with a title that indicates the responsibilities. 
The selection process appears to be reasonable with the New Zealand Law Society having substantial input in consultation with the Attorney-General. I recommend however that Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa should be approached with a view to hearing its perspectives from the point of view of tangata whenua. Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa maintains a database of Maori lawyers makes submissions on a range of policies and proposed legislation ensures representation of its members on selected committees and organises regular national hui. As such it is an ideal body to seek specialist advice on these changes. 
In many ways there is an inevitable connection to the constitutional review that the Maori Party has negotiated as part of our coalition arrangements with National. Although New Zealand has its own Supreme Court we are still a Commonwealth country and on admission we swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. As such the constitutional relationship between the Treaty partners must be actively considered at every level of the administration of law and policy. At this first reading we are happy to support the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. We believe it could help maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing and by virtue of highlighting the reputation of the barristers involved will lead we hope to the protection of consumers of those services.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14469] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Blue Jackie: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14466] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to be speaking to the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. It is not a contentious bill as we have heard tonight. It has arisen because of concern that there is a lack of clarity regarding when gametes and embryos stored before the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act came into effect in 2004 must be disposed of. Specifically we have heard that the problem is that the principal Act prohibits storage of a human gamete or embryo for longer than a set period which is defined as 10 years or longer if approved by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The prohibition in the principal Act applies to gametes and embryos that have been in storage since before November 2004. This means that there are fertility clinics holding gametes and embryos illegally and this is certainly an unintended consequence of the Act. The Health Committee addressed this lack of clarity and this bill now clarifies that sperm eggs and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require approval from the ethics committee before the 10-year storage limit is up. In vitro fertilisation is a rapidly changing area and it is vital that we have clarity in the legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14457] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.  
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Graham Kennedy: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14457] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 My apologies but I understood that others were planning to speak ahead of my slot so I gave it a moment. I leaped up as fast as I could but clearly not fast enough—my apologies. 
This is just a very brief call to offer the Green Party’s views on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I say simply that we have been through each of the clauses pertaining to extending or affirming the Animal Products Act the Biosecurity Act the Civil Aviation Act the Commodity Levies Act and others. There are 10 all up and we have given each one significant consideration. We have to say that we do not support all of them. We find that we can support six of them: those relating to the Animal Products Act the Biosecurity Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act and the Social Security Act as well as the War Pensions Act and we have no particular opposition to the Civil Aviation Act and the Road User Charges Act. 
We have traditionally opposed all agreements or legislation pertaining to free trade so we have opposition to the validation and confirmation under the Tariff Act 1988. We also have problems with the Gambling Act 2003 on the understanding that we do not support this Act because it puts levies on two of the most accessible and harmful gambling practices: pokies and racing. This means that it will probably result in less tax take from these and more profit to the providers and perhaps more incentive to open a pokie parlour so we have opposition to that particular Act. 
We oppose two of these Acts but we do not wish to be unduly negative. In light of our opposition to those two Acts we plan to abstain on the vote. Thank you.
Event: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Event: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14457] 
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Kevin Hague to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “and HQSC”; and 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)Section 66 is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1): 
“(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to HQSC in respect of costs which are to be met by the Ministry of Health in a financially responsible manner that allows HQSC to carry out its functions to a high standard.” 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Report corrected having originally been reported as without amendment.
Carter John: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Carter John: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14457] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: 
 I move  
That the Regulations Review Committee consider the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2010. 
Motion agreed to.
Hipkins Chris: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14456] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a brief call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I thank the Minister of Civil Defence for his very thorough description of the contents of the bill and all of the different orders and so forth that it confirms and validates. 
I want to raise an issue with the Deputy Leader of the House to do with the referral motion to the Regulations Review Committee. I considered whether we wanted to move an amendment to that referral motion. I think given that it is going to the Regulations Review Committee which is chaired by a Labour member—whom I am sure will act very responsibly—I saw no need to do that. But I am concerned about the tendency for the Government whenever it moves a referral motion now to give committees the power to meet when the House is sitting under urgency or even under normal sitting hours. I am very concerned about that because it prevents members from effectively participating in both the House and select committees. It is something that the Government is doing too often at the moment. In this particular case there may well be reasonable justification for that; because of the confirmation and validation nature of this legislation undue delay could be problematic. In most of the cases that the Government is moving referral motions it is totally unnecessary. That is just a general observation. I think the Government is doing it too often. In this case moving an amendment is not necessarily a valid thing to do but it would be good to see the Government respect the House a little more. I am aware that the Deputy Leader of the House respects the institution of Parliament to a high degree and I think it is really important that members get the opportunity to participate both here in the Chamber and in select committees without having to juggle those two things unless it is absolutely necessary. Overall the Labour Opposition sees no need to delay this legislation unnecessarily and we intend to vote in favour of it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Members the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I beg your pardon. I am sorry. The member from the Green Party did not call but I think he is seeking a call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is happening far too regularly. Members are not seeking the call when the time comes. Once I put the motion that we move to the vote I do not have to come back to allow a speaker to speak. It is very very clear. It happened last night and it has happened again now. If members wish to call they must be on their feet instantaneously. Otherwise I will be putting the question.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14452] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I start my contribution by agreeing with what John Hayes said. The present Governor-General is one of the most popular and friendly Governors-General that we have had. I also say that the present Prime Minister is the most secular Prime Minister that New Zealand has ever had. Why do I say this? It is because of his vision that we have the first ethnic Cabinet Minister in the Hon Pansy Wong. It is because of his vision that I am here along with my colleague Melissa Lee. 
I support the second reading of the Governor-General Bill. In 2007 the previous Government asked the Law Commission to review the Act. To this end the Law Commission found that the functions of the Governor-General in the Civil List Act were outdated and complicated. The Governor-General Bill is important and timely legislation. The Governor-General plays an important role in our constitution as the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. The Governor-General maintains the legitimacy and stability of the Government. 
This bill creates a new funding structure for the office of Governor-General. The main purpose is to streamline the financial arrangements for the support of the office of Governor-General and to ensure that this office is easier to administrate. The new funding structure for the office of Governor-General includes funds for international and domestic travel. The present exemption from the payment of income tax on the Governor-General’s salary will be removed. There is no longer a reason for the exemption and successive Governors-General have requested that it be discontinued. The Queen has chosen to pay income tax on her private income since 1993 and the Australian Governor-General and state governors have paid income tax on their salaries since 2001. It is now appropriate that the highest office holder in this land is subject to income tax and all the other taxes and charges that every New Zealander pays and contributes to the running of this country. 
This bill also removes certain outdated restrictions on the availability of an annuity paid to former Governors-General and their surviving spouses and partners. The bill will further improve transparency by requiring the Government to present to the House on an annual basis the detail of the expenses incurred to provide such benefits. Apart from one or two exemptions the new legislation will not apply to the current Governor-General; it will apply when the next Governor-General is appointed. Overall this bill represents a big step forward in the way the Government supports the office of Governor-General. I support this bill.
Dean Jacqui: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14442] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What a shame it is that I have to follow such a poor contribution from a clearly disturbed member of Parliament. The Governor-General Bill is important legislation and indeed it is timely. The Governor-General plays a very important role in our constitution and in the life of New Zealanders and it is of regret to me that Trevor Mallard who has just resumed his seat sinks once again into the gutter to take a poor shameful opportunity to score some mean little political points. 
As the Sovereign’s representative in New Zealand the Governor-General helps to maintain the legitimacy and continuity of Government. The Governor-General Bill which has been examined by the Government Administration Committee provides updated and simpler financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme. The purpose is to encourage transparency and to ensure that it is simpler to administer than under the present regime. 
I wanted to make just a short contribution and I finish by saying that it is also regretful that the chair of the Government Administration Committee David Parker yielded to Mr Mallard. I would have thought that as the chair of the Government Administration Committee Mr Parker might take the opportunity to make a decent contribution to this debate; he may well do so but I do not hold out any hope.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14422] 
9. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report into  
Children in Care 
 that priority should be given to research focused on the needs of Maori tamariki and rangatahi in the care system; and if so what action is she intending to take to implement the report’s recommendations? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes; a work programme is being developed on the issue of children in care. What is clear is that outcomes for children who have to be taken into care are far from ideal whether they are Maori or non-Maori. As I am sure the member will agree the State should be the parent of last resort. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What will she do to remedy the report’s findings that approximately half of Maori children in the care population are not currently living with whanau a fact that undermines current policy and legislation which has a very strong emphasis on whanau hapu and iwi connection? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: First off the best scenario for children is that their parents and whanau do not harm them. However where children are not safe and we have to intervene the first priority is finding them a safe and secure place to live. Ideally and in many cases that is with family or whanau but it is a sobering reality that that is not possible for all of the 4200 children and young people in Child Youth and Family care especially those in short-term care. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the Minister respond to the finding that when kin placements are not investigated some Maori and Pasifika children continue to be placed with Pakeha foster parents which the report concludes is a source of tension especially when short-term placements drift into long term? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Child Youth and Family is always seeking to do better in very difficult situations. However it is important to note that that covers a range of circumstances which can make it very difficult for Child Youth and Family. For instance some parents refuse to give details to whanau and sometimes children have to be uplifted urgently at short notice in very serious situations. We are working alongside iwi to make sure that Maori children are in families not State care wherever possible. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the Government doing to improve outcomes for children in State care? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We recognise that the best outcomes for children in care result from being part of a safe secure and permanent family. That is why in August we announced the Home for Life programme to get children and young people out of care and into families. We are developing programmes specifically to help iwi find safe secure family homes for Maori children in care such as whanau finders and extended marae-based family group conferences.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14424] 
11. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What reports has he received on seizures Customs has made of methamphetamine being imported into New Zealand? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Excellent intelligent work by the Customs Service recently led to the seizure of what is believed to be the country’s single biggest drug concealment inside human bodies. Three men arriving in Auckland via Thailand were targeted as potential drug smugglers by customs staff at the border. They were detained and scans revealed they were carrying large quantities of P internally. The astute work by customs officials resulted in the seizure of 2.5 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine with a street value of approximately $2.5 million. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he received on the seizure of methamphetamine precursor at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Up to the end of September this year the Customs Service seized 821 kilograms of methamphetamine precursor at the border. This amount of precursor would produce up to 232 kilograms of methamphetamine and cause about $93 million worth of harm. Once that precursor was converted to methamphetamine its street value would have been about $232 million. Last year the Customs Service had an all-time record intercept of 1.2 tonnes of precursor and we are hoping that this year based on the 821 kilograms to date we may beat even our own outstanding record.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14419] 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress has been made by police following the introduction of new legislation allowing them to seize the proceeds of crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the new powers this Government has given to the police to allow them to investigate and seize the assets of criminals are producing great results. The latest figures as at 30 September show that $29.7 million worth of assets have been restrained since the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was passed by this Parliament. These assets are now in the hands of the official assignee awaiting further legal proceedings and orders. Since the Act was passed an estimated $30.6 million worth of assets have been investigated as a result of methamphetamine offending. 
Jonathan Young 
: What other reports has she received from police in relation to the targeting of organised crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am also pleased to report that nationally coordinated investigations into organised crime have resulted in increased busts of clan-labs. So far this year 93 labs have been closed down throughout the country. In August a record 23 labs were busted including six in Auckland five in the Waikato four in the Bay of Plenty and three in Counties-Manukau. Police are to be congratulated on a 17 percent increase in the apprehension of methamphetamine offenders this year along with an astounding 140 percent increase this year in methamphetamine seizures. Our Government is backing the police to get out there and make life a misery for New Zealand’s criminal underbelly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the Minister is so fond of taking responsibility for and confirming so-called good news is she also prepared to confirm that the highest murder rate in 13 years has occurred under her watch as noted by the New Zealand Police in the official crime statistics released on 1 October? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The fact is that there was a big increase—a spike—in murders in August 2009 and I am surprised the member has taken so long to catch up with that. However murders are committed by offenders not by the police.