edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11831] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I selected clause 224 of Part 3 of the Property Law Bill to speak on because I felt that as a non-practitioner in a legal sense I would find it easier to understand. 
It is an interesting point that the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended this particular clause be amended to allow a commercial lease to include an absolute prohibition on changing the use of the leased premises. At first I was struggling to understand why that would be a good idea but this amendment is particularly relevant to the multi-tenancy permits and premises—for example malls where retailers depend on all the premises in the complex being used for their designated purpose. This amendment would ensure that a lessee was limited in the use to which he or she could put a specified lease and it would protect the interests of the lessor and others in the vicinity of the lease. 
The select committee considered the potential interpretation and the effect of this recommendation and it was one of the very few clauses that attracted a number of submissions. I should say that being on the select committee one of the biggest disappointments was the lack of submissions—particularly from the legal fraternity. But the select committee considered that such an amendment would create a workable balance between the interests of lessors and lessees and would ensure more certainty in practice while reducing the potential involvement of the courts. So it was recommended that the clause be amended to avoid misinterpretation and to make it clear that the lessor can claim legal costs and expenses only if entitled to do so under the lease. 
The select committee also considered recommending an amendment that would allow all the parties to a commercial lease to agree on the conditions to be satisfied by a lessee before a sublet can be signed in order to provide greater certainty to parties. However such an amendment might similarly remove the ability of the court to determine whether a lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld. It was recognised that this would be a significant change to the current law and it was considered not to be in the best interests of the parties involved. For those reasons it was recommended that the existing provision be retained. Thank you Madam Chair. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11831] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 In this long-running Committee debate on the Property Law Bill we see in Part 4 key provisions relating to the leases of land. There is only really one provision that I think is worthy of comment in the Committee stage although I am sure other members will have other issues that detain them. But I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to clause 265 and ask a number of questions of him because tricky legal issues arise here. Clause 265 is concerned with the removal of fixtures by the lessee. The lessor is the landlord; the lessee is the tenant. Clause 265 reads in part: “A lessee may remove any trade ornamental or agricultural fixture (except a lessor’s fixture) that the lessee has affixed to any leased premises” but only on two conditions. The first is while the lessee is in lawful possession of the premises; or during a reasonable period after the lease ceases to apply in the particular case. 
I just note the provisions of clause 265(3) that a lessee who exercises a right to remove a fixture has some very precise obligations. The first is to cause as little damage as possible to the leased premises; the second is to make good any damage caused; and third to accept a compensation obligation. In that context I am sure members of the Committee who may have been in the position of being a tenant will know about the disputes that break out between landlord and tenant on fixture removal issues. Here we see a carry-forward of old law and a clarification in plain English of obligations that certainly needed that degree of precision and rewording.
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11831] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 3.
[Volume:642;Page:11831] 
I also shared the views of my colleague Chris Finlayson in recognising that Part 3 is a very useful codification of mortgages and other things. Just to deal with one particular aspect of that and not to take the Committee’s time unduly I bring to the attention of the Committee the terms and conditions of leases where the Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that an amendment be made to clause 142(2)(a) to require the inclusion of all renewal terms in the maximum lease term. The clause as introduced requires the term of lease entered into by a mortgagee in possession not to exceed 2 years in a residential tenancy or 15 years in any other case except with the consent of the mortgagor or a court. The committee considered that the clause as introduced is ambiguous about whether renewal terms are included in the 15-year period and the last thing one needs in mortgage agreements is ambiguity. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11831] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would agree with both my colleagues who have spoken previously and I say to Dr Worth that I too shared his sense of distress initially at seeing the doctrine of interesse termini being abolished. But I daresay it is something that one comes to terms with.
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11830] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to talk about Part 3 because again it deals with something that is really very practical for most New Zealanders and that is mortgages. I think that an excellent job was done by the Law Commission in reporting on this particular area of the law and I commend the Ministry of Justice which took the commission’s report and dealt with some very complex issues of law reform in the area of land and which has done it very well in Part 3. 
There are a couple of minor amendments but again I repeat what I said in the House during the second reading debate yesterday: the quality of work that was done is reflected in what is really the paucity of reports or comments from the Justice and Electoral Committee on this area. I think we recommended that clause 77A be inserted in the bill. The reason for that as the commentary says is to clarify the relationship between this bill and the Personal Property Securities Act. But really there is not too much of any great moment here that one needs to dwell on. It is one of those areas as I have said in the House in the last few days in relation to other statutes that one could spend a lot of time on or briefly summarise. 
But the key point that needs to be made is that Part 3 brings together all the rules relating to mortgages and it is a splendid piece of work. That is all I think I need to say.
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11830] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes debate on schedule 2.
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11830] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am glad that Mr Finlayson has drawn our attention to clause 58 “Abolition of obsolete estates and rules”. I think it is important to note—and probably the Minister will speak about this—that we are now seeing abolished some rather critical provisions that I think well stood the test of time. I am talking obviously of a covenant to stand seized livery of seisin and a contract for the sale and purchase of land. But what I would like to direct the attention of the Committee to is not clause 58 which Mr Finlayson has spoken on so well but rather to clause 60 where we see I think with some sadness the doctrine of interesse termini abolished. 
I hear from members of the Committee perhaps rumblings of concern to see that doctrine abolished. It was a seminal part of land law and it certainly I think detained many conveyancing practitioners as with pens poised they looked to see whether changes might be made to a particular conveyancing document. The way that the Justice and Electoral Committee approached the matter has been to strike out that particular provision and substitute what is probably a much more workable framework. So not only is the doctrine of interesse termini abolished but additional provisions of a most helpful nature have been added. I think probably the most helpful is clause 60(2) which states: “A lessee acquires an estate in the land on the date fixed for the commencement of the lease whether or not the lessee enters into possession of the land on that date.” That is a provision that I think it is worthy of particular note. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11828] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1.
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11826] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It is a bit unusual really to start off this debate without a prefatory comment from the Minister. I am a bit surprised by that because this is important legislation which has a history that in recent times has gone back to 1952 but beyond that it goes way way back to the conveyancing ordinances of 1842. There is a shameful aspect to it which I would like for just a moment to refer to—that is we are here faced with legislation that was the basis of a very careful report by the Law Commission some years ago and it has taken all this time to come to fruition in the parliamentary process. It was I understand in 1994 that the Law Commission completed a report on this important topic yet it was not until 14 November 2006 that the Government introduced this legislation. 
One of the current issues in Parliament is this word “property” and the scope of this word and in the last few days that has been an issue that this Parliament has had to revisit in a number of contexts. But here we have a very broad and sweeping definition. “Property” means everything that is capable of being owned whether it is real or personal property and whether it is intangible or tangible property. In the context of some seven parts to this legislation there is an opportunity of course to take multiple calls but I would just say that in respect of Part 1 where we are dealing with preliminary provisions what is at issue here is the purpose of the legislation and a raft of definition provisions. I notice that the Act will bind the Crown which is surely appropriate and there are some other general and enabling provisions. 
I commend Part 1 to the Committee.
Collins Judith: Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11820] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is my privilege to be able to speak tonight to this Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. In particular I would like to point to clause 18 which affects section 103 of the principal Act in relation to the ability of people to apply to the court “to review any decision made by an attorney acting under an enduring power of attorney while the donor is or was mentally incapable:”. 
This is an extremely important provision. I say that because there have been instances—as my colleague Katrina Shanks has so ably pointed out—of people who have misused a power of attorney to benefit themselves others or their own families to the detriment of an elderly relative. In particular it is quite distressing for people to see that sometimes the most unkind people in these situations can be one’s own children. I think that many of us hope that our children do not do the same to us as others have. I think it is important to note that the donor—and this bill does accept the fact that donors can sometimes lose and then regain mental capacity—can ask for decisions to be reviewed. Other people who may apply for any decision to be reviewed are: any relative or attorney of the donor who is not the particular attorney who has made the decision; a social worker; a medical practitioner; a trustee corporation; the manager of a residence in which the donor is a patient; and any welfare guardian. 
So there are ample opportunities for those people who see or think that they see an abuse of a power of attorney being undertaken to do something about it. It is really important to have that standing and one of the best things about this particular part of the bill is that it allows that. Many of us will have worked with people from Age Concern and with other people who are involved in the area of preventing elder abuse and these people have said that that provision is particularly important. That is why the Social Services Committee inserted subsection (h) in section 103 to allow for “a person authorised by a body or organisation contracted by the Government to provide elder abuse and neglect prevention services” to also apply for the decision to be reviewed. So there is ample opportunity to review a decision. 
Hopefully people will never need to apply for a review. Hopefully the message will get out there that the enduring powers of attorney which were set up to help people whose health—in particular mental health—had declined often in their advanced years will not be able to be misused again. Obviously some people will try but at least we now have a mechanism—a very good mechanism I believe—for people to be able to deal with that. 
In conclusion I say that I am very pleased with this bill. I think that Part 2 is a good part. It is the main part of the bill it is sensible law and it is one that I think everybody on the select committee was able to agree with and be proud to be part of.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11818] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11817] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11817] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11814] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11814] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Harawira Hone: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11813] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 The Maori Party is not against development per se but we are not of a mind to be blindly supportive of international developments that lead to the kind of scenario we had in Bougainville or the kind of scenario where New Zealand supported the Indonesian Government and the Indonesian army to continue to plunder West Papua and other places. Although I hear the korero that Pasifika countries have signed up to this agreement I am not so dumb as to believe that they signed up to it because they love it. Often they sign a deal because it is the only deal going. It is a bit like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. 
I am prepared as is the Maori Party to be convinced of the rightfulness of this but we will not be voting for it simply on the basis that somebody from the National Party thinks we should. We are independently minded enough about what happens in our country and we are mindful also of what happens in other countries. 
I look again to the Northern Territory. I know for example that although John Howard was talking about child abuse etc. and saying he had a 5-year plan to turn it round for some strange reason he slipped in a deal to get his hands on land in the Northern Territory for the next 95 years. Why? He did it so that those so-called resource development companies—people who will come in and help all those poor people—can go in there and get access to all the minerals out of that place so that the other companies that might say nice things about what they will do in the Northern Territory can actually dump all their nuclear waste from the reactor down in Sydney. No I say to Mr Mapp. 
I am happy to say the Maori Party is open-minded to development but we are not about to be dragged into development that is not consistent with the needs of indigenous people. We are more than happy to take it up with representatives of some of those Pacific countries—and we will—to see whether in fact this is the kind of deal that is beneficial to them on their terms or beneficial to them because that is the only deal they can possibly get.
Hartley Ann: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11811] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes the schedule.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11776] 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: What initiative will New Zealand take at the United Nations General Assembly this year to reduce the risk of use of nuclear weapons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 New Zealand will introduce a resolution into the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly next month calling for all States with nuclear weapons to remove such weapons from high-alert and launch-on-warning status. This resolution is in response to the threat posed by having literally thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert and is consistent with the recommendations of the report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission which was released last year. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is launch-on-warning status and why in particular is it considered to be a threat? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Launch-on-warning status is a nuclear posture intended to ensure quick responses in the event of an apparent nuclear attack. For example if the attack were to be between Russia and the United States a nuclear-armed missile would take approximately 25 minutes to get from one continent to the other. If the attack was from a submarine-launched missile it could be considerably less than that—a matter of sheer minutes. Any State that perceives there may be an attack on it that has its arms on launch-on-warning status and that then retaliates does not know whether the apparent attack is real whether it might have been the result of terrorist infiltration into a nuclear facility or whether the launch of a missile from the other side might have been the result of a technical malfunction or an accident. Clearly that is a high-risk situation and to move those weapons back from hair-trigger alert makes a lot of sense and will be widely supported. 
Dianne Yates 
: What other initiatives on disarmament is New Zealand likely to lead at this year’s United Nations General Assembly? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand will also lead a resolution along with Mexico and Australia promoting the bringing into force of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. New Zealand will lead a second resolution together with Brazil to promote the building of support for a southern hemisphere free of nuclear weapons. We will work with our partners in the New Agenda Coalition to promote a resolution on nuclear disarmament generally. All of those initiatives are evidence of New Zealand’s ongoing leadership in our effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We should be proud of the lead that New Zealand is taking under a Labour-led Government.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11775] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What action is the Government taking to protect New Zealanders against harmful substances? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Labour-Progressive Government takes a multi-pronged approach to protecting New Zealanders from harmful legal as well as illegal substances. Our approach under the National Drug Policy is to put in place measures to reduce the supply of drugs reduce the demand for those drugs and treat those who are the victims of those substances. The list of actions taken by this Government is far too long for me to read out in the House today. However the latest action was the introduction of legislation into this House yesterday to ban benzylpiperazine and related party pills—legislation supported by research expert opinion and an overwhelming number of members in this House. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the Minister been asked to refer any other substances to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have. Recently I received a letter from a National member in this House asking whether the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs would consider the substance dihydrogen monoxide which may have been described to her as colourless odourless tasteless and causing the death of uncounted thousands of people every year and withdrawal from which for those who become dependent on it means certain death. I had to respond that the experts had no intention of doing so because the substance in question was water. I seriously doubt that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs would want to spend any time evaluating that substance.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11771] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it in relation to this question because Mr Copeland has released a press statement expressing disappointment in my answers. As I have not given my answers yet I wonder whether I should bother to do so or whether I should table the press statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to ask his question and it is up to the Minister to decide whether he replies.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11769] 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is the Government taking any steps to improve regulatory oversight of non-bank deposit takers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. Today I have announced that all deposit takers including finance companies building societies and credit unions would have to be registered by the Reserve Bank and comply with minimum prudential requirements covering such things as the minimum amount of capital the need for capital ratios and the like. Those regulations should help in particular in the longer term to price risk more accurately. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other steps is the Government taking to improve the regulation of finance companies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are taking a series of actions across portfolios to enhance the supervision of this sector. In addition to the announcement today the Minister of Commerce yesterday informed the House that the Government is drafting regulations to ensure that all trust deeds provide trustees with robust powers to get the information they need in order to carry out their duties in the interest of investors. None of those steps alone of course is a quick fix but together they will significantly improve regulatory oversight in this area. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House when the regulations he has just referred to might be passed and when the legislation that would back up his announcements this morning might come to the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised by the Minister of Commerce that in terms of the regulations she is hoping to have those within the next 2 or 3 weeks or so. In terms of the legislation we would hope to get the principal bill into the House before Christmas so that submissions can be called for over the summer period. I hope we can then make reasonably quick progress in the new year in that regard.
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11112] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity in the last couple of minutes of the sitting today to speak in support of the Major Events Management Bill. A lot of work has gone into getting this bill right by all parties around the House. It was very very disappointing therefore to see the spokesperson for the Government’s junior coalition partner take the opportunity to attack the National Party’s attitude to this bill. It was not necessary it was not helpful but it was unfortunately increasingly typical of the behaviour of that party in this House—behaviour that is leading us to think that MMP in actual fact stands for “Mickey Mouse Politics” because that was what we saw from the member of the Government’s junior coalition partner. 
A lot of work has been necessary to get this bill right and this Parliament was fortunate to have the thought consideration and reflection that the National members of the Commerce Committee were able to bring to it. You know I was interested to listen to Mr Mark try to ridicule the concept of entrepreneurship. I would have thought that the supreme example of entrepreneurship was the effort of the New Zealand Rugby Union in going out onto the world market and competing for what I understand is the third largest sporting event in the world—the third largest. The New Zealand Rugby Union went out there competed and won the right to host that event against bigger countries and against much more powerful commercial interests. I would have thought that the member of the Government’s junior coalition party actually would have at the very least acknowledged that point. 
This legislation is all about making—[ 
Interruption 
] Do I hear a voice from the distance interrupting as usual? This legislation is all about making sure that the Rugby World Cup 2011 and the other major sporting and other events that will be attracted to New Zealand can be hosted here. We have to conform whether or not we like it. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 134. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11103] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
[Volume:641;Page:11103]
Hodgson Pete: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11103] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11095] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill  
divided into Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 134.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11094] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 3 not agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11094] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11094] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Mr Chair I will certainly do my best this evening to deliver your aspirations. The Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove who is promoting this legislation had a mantra: “Do it once do it right.” Let us go back to November 2002 when he was responsible for passing the key leaky home legislation. He did it in a great panic and the task was done in 2 weeks. A mess of major proportions was made. Then we track forward to 2005 when there was another attempt to fix this mess. The Minister ignored submissions from the public and he introduced legislation to fix the botch-up. He also had produced a new Building Act and now he comes to this House in 2007 and says there is actually a further botch-up. This is a classic example of this Minister saying: “Do as we say not as we do in the Labour Party.” 
I think it is totally offensive for this Labour administration to insult the House by inviting it to suspend or break its own rules. This law change will not come into effect for a further 3 months on 28 November. I think it is absolutely extraordinary to usurp the House’s rules in this way. I invite the Minister to advise the Committee as to when he first learnt that the councils could not meet their deadline because in a speech he gave a month ago he said there was no problem. If he had read  
Molesworth & Featherston 
 this week he would have been able to read the story of the Labour Party’s rising star who has just been torpedoed by his bureaucrats. 
I would ask the Minister why house ownership has been reduced by 1 percent per annum under his stewardship. I would ask him why under his stewardship the cost of completing a house has risen by 20 percent per annum because of the Building Act and why of all the leaky home cases that have been brought to his attention over the last 5 years or more only 15 percent have been resolved. I think it is time for the Minister to contemplate an alternative career outside his housing portfolio because clearly he is making a total botch-up of the administration of that portfolio. I see this every day in my electorate in the Wairarapa where building costs are escalating hugely. 
Darren Hughes 
: The retirement villages! 
JOHN HAYES 
: This Government is imposing collateral costs on retirement villages as Mr Hughes mentioned to the point where most of the small ones are being put out of business because the charges for process that are being imposed upon house residents cannot be met by them because they are on fixed incomes. 
 There is another problem that I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to and that is the whole question of the administration of the Resource Management Act which is also negatively impacting on the house construction industry. This is coming about because no two councils administer the Resource Management Act in the same way. Everybody has a different set of standards and a different interpretation and this is adding hugely to building costs.
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11093] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not heard from Mr Hayes; there may be something new and interesting in what he has to say.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11092] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take a call. I am sure that members would be delighted to hear a contribution— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of course the Committee is the master of its own destiny. The member is perfectly entitled to ask. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to make a contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is Dr Smith— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you absolutely certain that Dr Smith has had four speeches on clause 3? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sir. 
John Carter 
: If my memory serves me right he has made some very valuable contributions. I guess they have been of such quality that the time seemed a lot shorter than it was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The honourable member himself has had only two speeches. If he would like to seek the call I would be happy to accept it.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11092] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are you seeking the call Dr Smith? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Dr Smith you have already had four speeches. According to the Standing Orders you are unable to speak again on this clause.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11091] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou. The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the amendment dividing the bill. When the Committee last considered the bill it was debating the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 to omit clause 3. Therefore the question before this Committee is that clause 3 stand part.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:641;Page:11091] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill to be set down for its second reading and remaining stages on Wednesday 15 August 2007 despite Standing Order 292. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11091] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11090] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11090] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11052] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11051] 
12.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he have confidence that the court system is delivering effective access to justice? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can he claim that the court system has been “steadily improving” under Labour when the median waiting-time for criminal jury trials in the High Court has increased by 62 percent since 2003; it has gone up from 6 months to 10 months and is doubling in Auckland and tripling in centres like Blenheim? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The court does not have any control over the number of applications that are filed with a court; the court simply deals with them. What this Government has done has been to invest heavily in courts. We have invested another $156 million into justice. We have appointed more judges and more staff and we have put in place more information technology systems and built more buildings. We have invested heavily into the system and the rates of disposal in our courthouses have gone up dramatically. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister claim that the court system has been steadily improving under Labour when the number of outstanding High Court criminal jury cases has increased by 79 percent since 2002 including a doubling of the number of cases in Auckland Dunedin Hamilton Rotorua Wellington and Whangarei? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The High Court disposal rate has increased by 9.4 percent. The High Court has increased its rates of disposal but what the court does not have control over is the rate of filing of applications. I think it is a sign of how effective this Government has been in cracking down on crime arresting criminals and bringing them before the courts. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does he stand by this statement that he made at a select committee: “Predictions are always difficult particularly when they are about the future.” or is he more confident when making predictions about the past? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The point I would make about that Opposition party is that it cannot make predictions. It has no policy. If we want to look at the National Party’s website today to see what its justice policy is what do we get? We get this statement: “Give us your views on justice.” The National Party is all about whinge grizzle and moan and it is absolutely bereft of any ideas whatsoever. All it does is oppose. When the Government puts forward good legislation like the Criminal Justice Reform Bill National opposes and opposes. It has no ideas.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11050] 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What assistance is the Government providing Kiwi families to buy their first home? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 As of 12 August 2930 families have used the Welcome Home Loan scheme to buy their first home. Over 1000 of these loans have been settled since the Government enhanced the scheme last September. Families living in every region of the country have bought homes with a Welcome Home Loan this year proving it is still possible for households on modest incomes to buy a home with a mortgage of up to $280000—although obviously most loans have been in lower-priced housing markets. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of alternative homeownership schemes? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes I have seen a suggestion from John Key that State house tenants should be able to buy their own home. I am advised that the average net assessable income of State house tenants is $303.75 per week which is an income of $15795 per year and enough for a maximum affordable mortgage of only $53000. This is a long way off the average value of a State house in our three major cities of between $204000 and $289000. Mr Key’s promise is a hollow promise. There is no way that Sate house tenants could afford to buy their own homes and it is a cruel hoax to pretend otherwise. Tell the truth Mr Key! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I tell Ministers that when responding to questions those comments are not appropriate and are outside the Standing Orders. If Ministers continue to follow that practice they will not have an opportunity to answer the questions. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that 6000 State house tenants currently pay market rents—exactly the same rent as their neighbours—and that if those neighbours have dreams of homeownership perhaps those 6000 State house tenants also have dreams of homeownership; and why does the Minister not support State house tenants owning their own home or does he not like the idea of State house tenants becoming independent of his Government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that just 9 percent of State house tenants pay a market rent and many of these tenants— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. We are not going to get through question time with this level of disorder. Will the Minister please answer the question in silence and do so briefly to the point and within the Standing Orders. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that just 9 percent of State house tenants pay market rents. Many of these tenants are located in small provincial centres where the average rent—not the average price of a house—is very low. What I can confirm is that the Government is providing opportunities for New Zealanders to buy their own homes. We are not interested in issuing hollow promises that are simply not true.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11050] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You rightly ejected a member of the National Party from this Chamber. I would have understood that that was to be an ejection until the end of question time; so what on earth is that member doing back inside the House? She has vanished now but she was in the House just 5 minutes ago. Now that is in contempt of the Speaker’s ruling. You said that she had to go we would assume that to last till the end of question time yet I looked over there just a short while ago and she was plainly inside the Chamber. Again that is in contempt of your ruling. What are you going to do about it Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry I did not actually see the member come back but if she did I will look into the matter.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11048] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for question No. 10 of the questions for oral answer to be referred to the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and conservation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11047] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their contributions. I think the matter is a serious one. I agree that there may well appear to be something of a contradiction between the two Standing Orders. I therefore reserve my ruling on this matter and will come back to the House.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11047] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 While there is actually nothing I would enjoy more than to answer the member’s questions in the House the member is in fact well aware that the constitutional situation is that the Minister retains full responsibility for the programme that I am leading. Everything I do is discussed with the Minister and declared to the Minister. The Minister retains accountability to the House and to Cabinet for it.