edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8723] 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why is the Government embarking on a comprehensive economic programme in 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Because the country needs it after 10 years of economic mismanagement and a global recession. We have a lopsided economy where we spend more than we earn and our export sector is weak. In fact it has been in recession for the past 5 years and in the 5 years to 2009 Government spending grew at twice the rate of economic growth. We can either muddle along and fall further behind or set our sights higher and create the kind of country that the Prime Minister spoke about yesterday. 
Craig Foss 
: What is the Government’s economic priority for 2010 and beyond? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Better economic performance means having more jobs new jobs higher incomes and better public services. In 2010 the Government will have less focus on managing the short-term impacts of the recession and more focus on raising our long-term economic prospects so that we can have more jobs higher incomes and better public services. 
Craig Foss 
: How will the Government’s economic programme deliver jobs and sustainable higher economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: By correcting all the imbalances that arose through 10 years of economic mismanagement and by improving our management of the economy in a systematic way. We have used a range of review groups and task forces to give us advice and yesterday the Prime Minister set out in detail the Government’s policy programme and action programme for this year. 
Craig Foss 
: Is there broad agreement across the community about what needs to be done? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes generally there is. Not everyone agrees— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —as is obviously the case. Those who were responsible for the mess that we got into do not agree that things need to change. But even on issues such as taxation there has been broad agreement that the taxation system needs to be improved so that it is fairer and more equitable and so that it sends the right incentives to people to save to invest and to work and less of an incentive for them to consume too much and borrow too much.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8772] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Joyce Steven: Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Joyce Steven: Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8777] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8777] 
Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8768] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is too much noise and there are also many people moving into the gallery. I ask that we give the speakers some respect.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:8773] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise upon the conclusion of Ms Fitzsimons’ speech. It is likely to go beyond 6 o’clock and I think that the House could extend its sitting by leave on this occasion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You mean rise for the dinner hour? We should suspend for the dinner hour; otherwise we are adjourning the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think that is very good. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to suspend for the dinner hour at the completion of the valedictory statement of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8507] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Does he as the Minister of Maori Affairs believe—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —that establishing a Maori statutory board to advise the Auckland Council on policy matters is a good enough replacement for dedicated Maori seats? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me there was a lot of noise in the House but that does not appear to be the question that I have—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to honourable members that the Speaker is on his feet and there will be silence or despite it being close to Christmas someone will become only the second person to be thrown out of the House in the year. I am serious about that. We will have a little decorum. I ask the Hon Parekura Horomia to please read the question on notice.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8443] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8438] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is denied.
Pillay Lynne: Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8424] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: A 5-minute call? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: A 5-minute call if that is OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not.
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8427] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 59 
Adams 
Dean (P) 
Joyce (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Auchinvole (P) 
Douglas (P) 
Kaye 
Smith N (P) 
Bakshi (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Key (P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Bennett D 
Finlayson (P) 
King C (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Flavell 
Lee 
Tolley (P) 
Blue 
Foss (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Tremain 
Boscawen (P) 
Garrett (P) 
McClay 
Turia (P) 
Bridges 
Gilmore 
McCully (P) 
Upston 
Brownlee 
Goudie (P) 
Parata 
Wagner (P) 
Calder 
Groser (P) 
Peachey (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Guy (P) 
Power (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hayes 
Quinn 
Wong 
Chadwick 
Henare (P) 
Roy H (P) 
Woodhouse 
Coleman (P) 
Hide (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Teller: 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Sharples (P) 
Goodhew 
Noes 62 
Anderton 
Delahunty 
Jones 
Pillay 
Ardern J 
Dyson 
Katene 
Prasad 
Ardern S (P) 
English (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Barker 
Fenton 
King A (P) 
Robertson G 
Beaumont 
Fitzsimons 
Laban (P) 
Robertson R (P) 
Borrows 
Goff (P) 
Lees-Galloway (P) 
Roy E (P) 
Burns (P) 
Graham (P) 
Locke 
Sepuloni 
Carter C 
Hague (P) 
Lotu-Iiga (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Harawira 
Macindoe (P) 
Shearer (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Sio (P) 
Clendon 
Heatley (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Street 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hipkins 
Moroney (P) 
Turei   
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson 
Nash (P) 
Twyford (P) 
Curran 
Horomia (P) 
Norman 
Young 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
O’Connor (P) 
Teller: 
Davis (P) 
Huo 
Parker (P) 
Mackey 
Motion not agreed to.
Gilmore Aaron: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8410] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will just take a quick call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings a little but the reason I want to do so is to say firstly it is a pleasure to stand and support my colleague from Canterbury Amy Adams on this bill. Mrs Adams is blessed both by her beauty and her brains or that is what her husband tells me. She has brought a wonderful bill to the House and I will touch on two aspects that I think have not quite been touched on but are important. 
It is important that some charities have the ability to contract out their fund-raising and hence can use different percentages of administration costs. It is important that those percentages are quite variable and there is a good question mark over whether the percentages are set correctly now in the bill. I think that this bill has wide-ranging support around this House and it is excellent to be able to split out some of the minimum disclosure arrangements. I congratulate Amy on having this bill pulled out of the ballot and I look forward to seeing many more such bills. I look forward too to this bill being passed through to the select committee and to it coming back to the House later on. Thank you.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Third Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8396] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. Today is a great day. I feel particularly proud and as Labour’s spokesperson for interfaith dialogue I am quite humbled and privileged to stand to speak on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. This is a time to reflect on Christmas and the Methodist Church’s generosity in giving. 
First of all I acknowledge the visionaries behind the bill the members of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa and in Samoan the Lotu Metotisi o Niu Sila. I acknowledge the huge contribution that the churches make—in this particular instance the Methodist Church—because essentially this bill is about pastoral care. The second person whom I acknowledge is the bill’s sponsor my colleague and respected friend Brendon Burns Labour MP for Christchurch Central who has given his unconditional commitment to the bill. I thank Brendon for the sterling work that he has done on this bill. Thirdly I acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who worked on the technical details of the bill. Fourthly I acknowledge the most vulnerable who will benefit incredibly from the generosity of this legislation; the Methodist Church of New Zealand; and all of the people who have committed to it. 
Brendon Burns and Amy Adams have already talked to the technical points in respect of the law in the third reading but I stand to take a call to acknowledge the huge contribution that the Methodist Church makes. From the latest census data we know that it is the fifth largest Christian denomination in New Zealand. I acknowledge the 53 Methodist Church communities around New Zealand and the pastoral care and the support that they give to the most vulnerable through food banks through supporting children and young people families and the elderly and through a lot of the op shops operated by the Methodist Church. 
I say today particularly—and I reflect on a former Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange who was a Methodist—that the many values and principles the Church displays with regard to looking after others and those most in need are to be cherished. I feel very privileged to be part of a historic moment acknowledging the wonderful contribution the Methodist Church makes in supporting the third reading of this wonderful bill.
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
[Volume:659;Page:8382] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the assessment of New Zealand’s emissions reduction target at Copenhagen which rates the target very well given the interest that there is in New Zealand’s position at Copenhagen. 
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.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
[Volume:659;Page:8381] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s emissions reduction target in light of evidence from a new study conducted in Germany the results of which were made public in New Zealand yesterday. The application arises as a result of newspaper reports of the new study. There is no ministerial responsibility for the results of the study and as has been ruled on many occasions a continuing issue—the accumulation of evidence concerning the setting of emissions reduction targets—cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. There being no particular case of recent occurrence this application is declined.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8379] 
10.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has she received about the numbers of redundancies of adult and community education coordinators in high schools which are occurring right now? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I do not have advice on the numbers but then I would not expect to because those are matters for the boards of trustees. I do understand that those are employment or contractual arrangements and it depends on whether the boards of trustees have employed these coordinators whether they have contracted them or whether the coordinators will continue to provide services in the new year. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was set down on notice as a question for consideration. I would have thought the Minister might have been able to discern that information from officials. Is that not possible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question that member has asked—and I accept fully that it was on notice—asked what advice the Minister had received on the matter. The Minister said she had not received any advice on the matter. I think that it was a perfectly reasonable answer to the question. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How are schools paying for these redundancies? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said to the member in my earlier answer it is an employment matter between the boards of trustees and the staff. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What advice has she received about the pressure on schools’ budgets caused by those redundancies and what will children go without next year because of them? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not had any advice on that matter. 
Sue Moroney 
: If it is costing Melville High School in Hamilton around $80000 to pay for two redundancies what has she suggested that the principal of Melville High cuts from that school’s operational grant in 2010 to afford the necessary and rightful redundancy payments? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to the board of trustees of Melville High School that that was a decision it made when it employed someone full-time on a yearly contract of funding. It was clearly a decision that the board made itself. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked what suggestions the Minister had for what the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough. The Minister answered the question because the member asked what suggestions she had and she gave suggestions. If the member asks that kind of question she cannot expect a precise answer.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8378] 
9.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Have any recent steps been taken to protect New Zealand communities from the dangerous behaviour of boy racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that on 1 December— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I say to members of the House that what is going on here is just not reasonable. A member has asked a question which is her right and she deserves to hear an answer as does the House. The members who are carrying on their personal interjections across the House are being totally unreasonable. I invite the Hon Judith Collins to continue her answer and I apologise for her being interrupted. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am pleased to report that on 1 December two new street racing laws came into effect. These laws have given the police the courts and councils new tools to crack down on boy racers. Repeat street racing offenders can now have their cars impounded seized sold or crushed. They can receive demerit points for noise offences. Councils can also bring in by-laws to ban cruising on city streets. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What actions have police taken following the passing of boy-racer legislation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Police have been highly visible over the weekend throughout the country. In Christchurch a special police operation resulted in six cars being impounded 52 unsafe vehicles being taken off the road and 80 young drivers called up for breaching licence conditions. These new laws are part of this Government’s focus on making our communities safer for families. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister tell New Zealanders in electorates like mine who endure much debilitating boy-racer noise why the latest two laws do nothing to cut noise exhaust levels as repeatedly promised by National in Opposition? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The laws relating to noise levels are not part of the Minister of Police’s jurisdiction. I think that that member should put down the question for the appropriate Minister on that particular issue. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps have taken place to protect communities in the Christchurch areas that have been particularly plagued by boy racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am delighted to report that the new Canterbury police antisocial road user team has achieved outstanding results in its first 3 months of operation. It has impounded 48 vehicles made 33 arrests suspended 30 licences issued 185 non-operation orders prosecuted 25 drink-drivers and attended 12 vehicle crashes. In addition it has issued more than 2200 infringement and offence notices in just 3 months. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table a page from a National Party election pamphlet in which big-bore campaigners Nick Smith and Nicky Wagner pledge tough new vehicle noise laws. 
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.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8377] 
8.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Were the capital and running costs of the self-drive car used by the Hon Bill English in the first 6 months of this Government properly appropriated under the Public Finance Act 1989; if so will he table official advice if any to that effect? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) 
: 
 Yes; the Department of Internal Affairs capital expenditure intentions were included in the estimates of appropriation as were the non-departmental other expense costs for the operation of those vehicles. The answer to the second part of the question is no. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If the Minister is so sure of himself then why does he not table the advice? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is standard Government practice not to release legal opinions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If he thinks he broke no regulation or law then why did he sign consultation letters to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the chair of the Remuneration Authority on 6 March only to consult them again on 18 May with one late change which is the one that removes the requirement for self-drive cars to be based at a member’s primary place of residence? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it was appropriate for me to do so. Can I—[ 
Interruption 
] Yeah I know that this is the thing that is holding the country back but members must bear with me for a second because I will just help them through their afternoon. The member pays a lot of attention to part 2 of the 2003 determination. Unfortunately for him he seems to have overlooked part 1 which I will just draw to his attention. It states— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What a smart alec. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: —no I am not a smart-arse; this is the answer to the question. It is the cost-effective principle which provides exactly this: “Wherever reasonably practicable members of the Executive should endeavour to use the most cost-effective alternative available.” That is exactly what we are doing. We are actually saving taxpayers money and I am sure that they welcome that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Minister make the hasty hurried and late change in May of this year which he now tells the House that he did not really need to do so; which part of that is not true? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it was brought to my attention by Ministerial Services in May that it was a good idea as a way of saving money and tidying up all the rules.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8376] 
7.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What objectives does New Zealand have at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and what is the latest advice on the prospect of these being achieved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 New Zealand’s objective is a comprehensive global agreement that limits temperature rises to 2 degrees or 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent and that contains the essential elements to achieve this with mitigation commitments by developed countries and mitigation actions by developing countries. It will not be possible to achieve a ratifiable successor to Kyoto but it would be a significant step forward to achieve agreement on a political declaration decisions on early action and a mandate to progress to a final agreement next year. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What reports has the Minister received on the adequacy of New Zealand’s target of a 10 to 20 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that an independent assessment of individual country pledges published in Copenhagen this week by the European Climate Foundation ranks countries from role models to inadequate. New Zealand receives a medium ranking consistent with our policy of ensuring that we do our fair share as a developed country and is in the top 10 of countries that have tabled commitments at Copenhagen. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Does he agree with the assessment that the biggest challenge at Copenhagen will be bridging the political gap between developed and developing countries; if so what steps will New Zealand be taking to assist in resolving these differences? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do because we will not resolve this global problem without getting large developing countries to curtail the growth in their emissions but they understandably want developed countries to take the lead. The initiative announced by John Key at the United Nations General Assembly to develop a global alliance on agricultural emissions is a contribution to assist in this area and we will be advancing it further at Copenhagen.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
[Volume:659;Page:8367] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill and the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill are set down for their first reading but before I set down the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill for its first reading I need to address the issue of its classification. The bill amends a local Act the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. However it is being promoted as a private bill despite rulings by previous Speakers that any Act that has been passed as a local Act must be amended by a local bill. Standing Order 249 requires a local bill to be promoted by a local authority; clearly the governing body of Christ’s College is not a local authority. 
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the boundaries between what constituted a local bill and a private bill were unclear and it was only in the 1920s and 1930s that the definition we know today was developed and adopted. Many bills that were passed as local Acts in those early days benefited private groups or corporate entities and would had they been introduced today have been classified as private bills. Amendments to these early local Acts are not common. In the past the House has dealt with such amendments by suspending the Standing Orders. On other occasions they have simply been passed by the House as private bills without comment. The Standing Orders though now provide clear guidance about the classification of bills. If a question arises the Speaker is required to decide the matter. 
I do not consider that it is necessary for the Standing Orders to be set aside in this case. I declare the bill to be a private bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading.
Adams Amy: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8410] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I thank the House for its support this afternoon and thank members for their useful and well-thought-through contributions. I will not take a lot more of the House’s time but I will use this opportunity of the right of reply to address a couple of the things that have come up in the debate. I will start though by thanking all party members for their support particularly Minister Roy who has been very supportive as the Minister involved. I also say that I deliberately chose the Fair Trading Act for this amendment bill because that Act is a central piece of consumer protection legislation. As a lawyer I have always enjoyed the width and support it gives consumers and I am very pleased to see this bill going forward as an amendment to that Act. 
I will address firstly the issues raised by the Maori Party about industry self-regulation and Minister Turia’s view that the bill is premature and we should let self-regulation do its thing. As I said in my opening contribution I am very open to looking at that and at everything else in the Commerce Committee. My concern I have to say about self-regulation is that I have yet to be convinced about the way industry will ensure that all fund-raisers will buy into that. Certainly self-regulation works well in professions like law and medicine where people have to have a licence to practise but I am not sure how we can force every business that fund-raises to become a member of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand and to comply with its rules. If in fact it can be shown that that can be done effectively then obviously I am more than open to that. 
Similarly Carol Beaumont and David Clendon in their speeches touched on the concern about where the thresholds would be placed in the legislation. I am certainly very open to that. I indicated in my first contribution that I like to think I am not one of those politicians who think they know everything. For me I recognised there was an issue that I wanted to see addressed and it was a matter of putting a stake in the ground in order to begin the debate. I certainly want to flag again that I will certainly be very open to a good discussion in the select committee about where those thresholds should be placed. It may well be that an amendment is necessary. So I want to make that quite clear to the House. 
In closing I say to members how much of a privilege it is as a member to bring a bill before this House to address something that I think needs to be addressed and to have this House work so well across party lines to address the issue on its merits. I thank the House for its support. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8367] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to discussions being held across the House I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 6 the recommended sitting programme for 2010 to be postponed today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8443] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8438] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is denied.
Tabling of Documents — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
Tabling of Documents — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
[Volume:659;Page:8382] 
Tabling of Documents 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the assessment of New Zealand’s emissions reduction target at Copenhagen which rates the target very well given the interest that there is in New Zealand’s position at Copenhagen. 
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.
Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
[Volume:659;Page:8381] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s emissions reduction target in light of evidence from a new study conducted in Germany the results of which were made public in New Zealand yesterday. The application arises as a result of newspaper reports of the new study. There is no ministerial responsibility for the results of the study and as has been ruled on many occasions a continuing issue—the accumulation of evidence concerning the setting of emissions reduction targets—cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. There being no particular case of recent occurrence this application is declined.
Speaker’s Rulings — Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
Speaker’s Rulings — Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
[Volume:659;Page:8367] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill and the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill are set down for their first reading but before I set down the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill for its first reading I need to address the issue of its classification. The bill amends a local Act the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. However it is being promoted as a private bill despite rulings by previous Speakers that any Act that has been passed as a local Act must be amended by a local bill. Standing Order 249 requires a local bill to be promoted by a local authority; clearly the governing body of Christ’s College is not a local authority. 
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the boundaries between what constituted a local bill and a private bill were unclear and it was only in the 1920s and 1930s that the definition we know today was developed and adopted. Many bills that were passed as local Acts in those early days benefited private groups or corporate entities and would had they been introduced today have been classified as private bills. Amendments to these early local Acts are not common. In the past the House has dealt with such amendments by suspending the Standing Orders. On other occasions they have simply been passed by the House as private bills without comment. The Standing Orders though now provide clear guidance about the classification of bills. If a question arises the Speaker is required to decide the matter. 
I do not consider that it is necessary for the Standing Orders to be set aside in this case. I declare the bill to be a private bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8367] 
Wednesday 9 December 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to discussions being held across the House I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 6 the recommended sitting programme for 2010 to be postponed today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8351] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am happy to respond to at least two of a number of the issues that have been raised by the member who rightly states that she has not only made a submission but followed up with me on some of the issues that have been raised in the report amongst other things in very recent correspondence relating to work that is ongoing in the criminal justice area. In respect of two or three items that the previous Government placed on the table as needing to be remedied as a matter of specific and very narrow amendment I think it is important that we do deal with these issues quickly. I note that the party opposite has agreed to support the legislation. 
I am reluctant to halt the progress of this bill while much broader work is being undertaken about the Legal Services Agency and other matters relating to legal aid. Part of that is because of the very matters the member has raised which are primarily about the Public Defence Service and the use of community law centres. I think I am right in saying but I stand to be corrected that in recent correspondence the member indicated that she was quite pleased with where the report went on those issues. I do think there is broader work to be done but I do not think that this bill would be the appropriate vehicle to deal with such structural work as opposed to two or three quite narrow points relating to eligibility and to representation at coronial hearings and Parole Board hearings. 
I am aware of just how big a task we have ahead of us in respect of some of those recommendations. I note that the member has been actively involved not just in making a submission but also in offering to have discussions with the Government about how that restructuring and realignment would look particularly with her interest in the area of the Public Defence Service and community law centres. I welcome that and I will be having those discussions with the member prior to Christmas.
Blue Jackie: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8342] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the first reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this amendment bill is to bring clarity to some aspects of the existing law the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. The bill will bring reassurance to the fertility clinics in New Zealand that are unintentionally breaking the law by storing some gametes and embryos. The current Act prohibits the storage of human in vitro gametes or embryos for longer than the set period of 10 years but it can be longer if approved by the ethics committee. The time limit of 10 years came into force in November 2004 with the introduction of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. In effect this means that fertility clinics in New Zealand will be holding gametes and embryos illegally and that will be of concern to those clinics. Clearly that is not an intended consequence of the current Act and this bill will rectify this situation. 
This bill will also make it clear that the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology or ACART may issue or give guidelines and advice to the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology or ECART on matters that need to be taken into account when considering whether to approve a longer storage period. I acknowledge the important work of both of those committees. The area of human-assisted reproductive technology is a fast-evolving area. Therefore it is important there is clarity in the work of these committees. The bill makes it clear that a longer storage period may be approved only if it is consistent with the relevant guidelines and advice issued by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. In effect this bill will give greater certainty to those ethics and advisory committees about their respective roles in making decisions around storage periods. This will be reassuring to those fertility clinics that are unintentionally breaking the law. 
I acknowledge the important work that fertility clinics do and provide in New Zealand. We have both public and private providers. The rate of infertility in New Zealand is steadily increasing each year and it is estimated that one in five couples trying to conceive will experience fertility problems at some stage. A significant number of those couples will need assisted reproductive technology. When infertility is diagnosed it can be devastating to couples. I acknowledge the important work that the health professionals working in those clinics in New Zealand do. I commend this bill to the House.
Bridges Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8355] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8346] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. It appears as though it will get unanimous support for referral to select committee so I will not unduly hold up its passage. I am a member of the Health Committee. This is not an area that I know very well but I am looking forward to hearing submissions on the bill. 
I think Lianne Dalziel’s comments about how this bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice but referred to the Health Committee underscore how complex and emotive the issue is and are very accurate. But although there is great good sense in referring the bill to the Health Committee the fact that my esteemed colleague Dr Hutchison is the chair of that select committee and able to impart his considerable knowledge and experience as an obstetrician and gynaecologist in a previous life is I think reason enough to refer it to the Health Committee and I look forward to his wise counsel in that regard. 
I also have to thank my select committee colleague Ruth Dyson for her advice on the Standing Orders. It is advice I do not think I needed; I am well aware of Standing Order 107 and Speakers’ rulings 47/2-7. I was not going to raise a point of order on this matter—it is a debating point I guess—but for somebody to raise the issue of an inquiry into the health of older people in the context of a human-assisted reproduction bill is about as long a bow as one could draw in terms of relevancy and I congratulate the member on her ability to bring that into the debate. 
On a quick reading of clause 5 which amends section 10 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act I find it a little surprising that this issue appears to have been overlooked in the passage of the original legislation but when we look at the myriad of complex issues that the House needed to consider at that time it is probably not surprising. Members were talking about prohibited activities restrictions on sex selection surrogacy and so on and these are very complex and emotive issues. The fact that they were probably not clearly articulated in the way Parliament intended a few years ago is not so surprising after all. I look forward to the passage of this legislation and I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8346] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Legal Services Amendment Bill makes some amendments unsurprisingly to the principal Act the Legal Services Act. Every grant of legal aid is subject to the condition that the aided person must make a repayment to the Legal Services Agency as calculated in accordance with those provisions and the Legal Services Regulations 2006. In Part 1 clauses 4 to 6 exempt victims of crime from the requirements of the financial eligibility test and from making repayments if they are applying for legal aid for coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings. This means that victims of crime can now apply for legal aid for coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings irrespective of their income level. 
Clause 7 enables the agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the proceedings. This will benefit all legal aid applicants not just victims of crime and it will improve administrative practice. Clause 8 of the bill extends the Act’s regulation-making power to exempt a specified class or classes of person or proceeding from the application of financial eligibility criteria or repayment conditions. Among other things regulations may be used to exempt victims of crime from financial eligibility criteria or repayment conditions in respect of proceedings other than coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings. This means that if another situation arises that is clearly not in the interests of justice but is one that has not been foreseen the Government will be able to make changes to the Act much more rapidly. This strikes an appropriate balance between parliamentary control over the legal aid system and the Government’s ability to move quickly where the public interest requires it. 
All six submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee supported the general intent of the bill. Although many sought greater support from the legal aid system for victims in the wider justice system the Government considers that the review of the Victims’ Rights Act and of course the recent legal aid review are the appropriate vehicles for considering these wider problems. Part 1 creates the incentive for the bill to address a specific problem in the Legal Services Act and provides flexibility to address future issues.
Goodhew Jo: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8330] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Statutes Amendment Bill just to reassert National’s support for this bill which is all about getting on with the business. This Parliament of course is often in the news because of contention over bills that come before the House. But by its very nature a Statutes Amendment Bill is supposed to be a vehicle for technical and short amendments to a range of Acts. In this case 47 Acts will be amended. It is not appropriate to include in such a bill amendments that will be by their very nature contentious. Therefore that is why we will be dealing with such a large number and a wide range of amendments in the bill. 
The 47 Acts that will be amended range in subject from wild animals to wills and from takeovers to telecommunications rates marriages drugs and national parks. So in fact a wide range of things will be discussed within the select committee presuming that anyone does seek to submit on these amendments—that they generate enough interest. In the nature again of this Statutes Amendment Bill it is likely that some people will say “For goodness sake let us just get on with it.” because this will make the law more streamlined and simpler. 
Let me give members just a couple of examples in relation to the changes to the Wills Act which was passed only in 2007. One amendment is that “a will-maker need not actually sign his or her will in the presence of witnesses but may acknowledge in the presence of witnesses that he or she signed the will earlier and that the signature on the will is his or her own:”. The other is that “a witness need not include a statement of his or her attestation but statements of this kind made by at least 2 witnesses are evidence of the will’s valid execution.” 
Another example of getting on with the business is the amendment to the Securities Act 1978. The amendment in clause 135 of Part 38 of the bill to section 68B(1) of that Act corrects a cross-reference error. This is yet another good example of the nature of this bill. It is non-contentious and is about getting on with the business. This is the sort of thing that we talk about out in our electorates—the fact that this Parliament is not always dealing with legislation that we argue about. Somewhere around 60 to 65 percent of the bills that travel through this House have unanimous or close to unanimous support. 
Therefore I certainly commend this bill in its first reading. I look forward to welcoming it back into the House in some months’ time and therefore to improving all 47 of these Acts with the passage of this bill.