edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — Cook Islands—Parliamentary Delegation Australia—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Commonwealth Parliament 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Cook Islands—Parliamentary Delegation Australia—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Commonwealth Parliament 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17015. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 1 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Cook Islands—Parliamentary Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the Parliament of the Cook Islands led by the Hon Cassey Eggleton Deputy Speaker is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be given a warm welcome. 
Australia—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Commonwealth Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in further informing members that the Hon Dr Mike Kelly Parliamentary Secretary for Defence from the House of Representatives Commonwealth of Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure members would also like to give him a very warm welcome.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Heather Roy 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Heather Roy 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not agree with that but I am happy to look at it and to give it due consideration for the member. But I think the member should be very careful if he wants a ruling on those sorts of matters. One would expect presumably a very narrow ruling.
Moroney Sue: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17033. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I had quoted two figures—199 and 207 per 100000. That should have read “per 10000”. It would have been a tenfold increase in both.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the financial review debate will be held on Tuesday. This is a 4-hour debate. Following this debate for the remainder of the week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. 
Dianne Yates’ valedictory statement will be made at approximately 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14916. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Why has he refused to include DNA testing to determine parentage in the Family Courts Matters Bill despite his own admission that “The Government agrees in principle with the policy intent” of the proposal? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
:  
The Family Courts Matters Bill is about increasing the openness of Family Court proceedings and approving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Court by making changes to processes and procedures. The member’s issue raises a significant policy issue that will need to be fully worked through before the Government decides to introduce further amendments to the legislation. In fact on 22 November I wrote to the questioner and explained to her that the issue of mandatory DNA testing is a justice policy issue and that it warrants further consideration by the Ministry of Justice which will report back when the work is complete. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister admit given he had recently described the bill to the Social Services Committee in a letter as an omnibus bill that if he wanted to make changes to allow the court to order paternity testing in this bill as recommended by the Law Society and the Law Commission there is nothing to stop him from doing so; and can he explain to children out there why he cannot be bothered to make changes that would allow them to know who their fathers really are or could he explain to the Law Society and the Law Commission why they are wrong? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The issue of mandatory samples for paternity testing also involves the issue of the use of force. Common law does not necessarily permit the sample or blood tissue to be taken from a person without his or her consent. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives people common law rights about personal liberty about trespass and about privacy. Those are rights that children have as well as adults. Legislation about paternity testing needs to find the appropriate balance between the interests of the mothers fathers and children. 
Judy Turner 
: Given that both the Law Commission and the Law Society have recommended that the law be updated to allow paternity testing and that I have offered him my fully drafted member’s bill to action those recommendations is the Minister now out of excuses; and does he plan to introduce legislation to address this legal loophole and finally create certainty for families? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have made it very clear that the issue is an important one will be considered and will come on to the Government’s programme. It needs to be fully considered. The member’s bill takes a very narrow interest in it and does not deal with the wider issues. 
Question time interrupted.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table advice from the Crown Law Office that makes it clear that no undertaking was given to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a press release issued by the former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board members on 12 March 2008. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a press release from the Ministry of Health on 1 March 2008 that effectively satisfies the undertaking— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What investment has the Government made in transport in the Waikato region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Since 1999 the Government has invested close to $1.2 billion in land transport in the Waikato region. In 2007-08 the Government forecasts to invest a further $200 million. This is a 70 percent increase on what the National Government invested in the region in 1999 as demonstrated by this graph that I am showing the House now. This is the investment into Waikato under a Labour Government. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has the Minister read on the Government’s commitment to the Waikato region? 
Paula Bennett 
: Desperate! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I heard an interjection from the backbench member saying “Desperate!”. It was desperate times under a National Government because certainly the Waikato region could not get any investment into transport. I have seen comments from David Bennett National Party MP saying that the Government lacks commitment to the Waikato region in respect of land transport. I do not know where he has been; it is obviously not in his own electorate. This Government has invested considerably into infrastructure in the Waikato region and all the National Party built was stone walls. I ask the member Rick Barker to hold up this graph which shows this Government’s investment into transport as a percentage of GDP. [ 
Interruption 
] That has got those members going because there are the facts and they do not like the facts. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has Land Transport New Zealand in effect withdrawn funding for two sections of the Waikato Expressway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it has not because funding for Hamilton and the Huntly bypass has not yet been allocated. In fact Land Transport New Zealand has not received formal funding applications for either project. Land Transport New Zealand has asked Transit to go back and have a look at these very high-cost projects before it submits its final funding applications in order that we get value for money. I would have thought that every person in this House would want value for money or is it just National Party rhetoric when its members talk about that?
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At this stage I cannot finally confirm that but I am hoping that we will be in a position on I think Thursday to take the first reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill that deals with Parts 4 4A and 5 I think it is of the Commerce Act. I am very happy to organise a briefing for the members opposite.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I may have missed it in the comments made by the Leader of the House and I apologise if I did but I would ask whether he mentioned any intention to introduce a Commerce Amendment Bill that deals particularly with Parts 4 and 5 of the Commerce Act. I would ask whether we are to have a commerce amendment bill next week; if we are given the nature of that bill I would ask whether it is likely that briefings will be available on a cross-party basis.
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 agreed to.  
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 agreed to.  
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 agreed to.  
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 agreed to.  
Part 13 agreed to.  
Part 14 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 4) the Fisheries Amendment Bill Historic Places Amendment Bill (No 2) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 4) the Reserves Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper186. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for first reading on the next available day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Any objections? Did I hear an objection? There is an objection. Leave cannot be granted.
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection.
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my bill set down for consideration which is the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Question time resumed.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 13 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the financial review debate will be held on Tuesday. This is a 4-hour debate. Following this debate for the remainder of the week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. 
Dianne Yates’ valedictory statement will be made at approximately 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I may have missed it in the comments made by the Leader of the House and I apologise if I did but I would ask whether he mentioned any intention to introduce a Commerce Amendment Bill that deals particularly with Parts 4 and 5 of the Commerce Act. I would ask whether we are to have a commerce amendment bill next week; if we are given the nature of that bill I would ask whether it is likely that briefings will be available on a cross-party basis. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At this stage I cannot finally confirm that but I am hoping that we will be in a position on I think Thursday to take the first reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill that deals with Parts 4 4A and 5 I think it is of the Commerce Act. I am very happy to organise a briefing for the members opposite.
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and Bills Therefrom — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and Bills Therefrom — 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 4) the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill (No 2) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 4) the Reserves Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the Government Administration Committee who have been instrumental in the passage of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I would also like to place on record my gratitude to the officials who work very hard on Statutes Amendment bills. They are an important vehicle. They cover a wide range of subject matters and some of them involve some unique challenges. This particular bill contained amendments to some 14 Acts covering subject areas as diverse as biosecurity fisheries district courts the regulations of veterinarians and the criminal law. 
I guess that although statutes contained in Statutes Amendment bills do not by their nature address significant policy issues the bills do provide a regular vehicle for minor non-controversial and technical amendments required to keep our statute book up to date. Of course none of these amendments would have received the necessary priority in the House if they were stand-alone measures. However gathered together in a Statutes Amendment Bill they assist in achieving an aim of all parliamentarians and that is to keep the law up to date accurate and user-friendly. 
I would again like to thank committee members and members of the House tonight for all their time and effort and again I acknowledge the many officials who have contributed to the passage of this legislation. I commend these bills to the House.
Event: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Event: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 agreed to.  
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 agreed to.  
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 agreed to.  
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 agreed to.  
Part 13 agreed to.  
Part 14 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 4) the Fisheries Amendment Bill Historic Places Amendment Bill (No 2) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 4) the Reserves Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper186. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Hobbs Marian: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hobbs Marian: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Any objections? Did I hear an objection? There is an objection. Leave cannot be granted.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for first reading on the next available day.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kedgley Sue: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to say that the Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Building Amendment Bill.
Cullen Michael: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory reforms set up under the Building Act 2004. The Building Act was introduced in response to the systemic issues that led to major building failures in the 1990s and in a wider sense to an expectation of re-establishing our world-class reputation for quality-built buildings. The regulatory costs around the new schemes in the Act reflect the necessary rebalancing of a building control system that had fewer upfront costs and controls but will potentially cost $1 billion to $2.2 billion for the downstream costs of repairing thousands of leaky homes. By introducing more robustness and accountability into the process at the front end we are ensuring that buildings will be built right the first time and that costs will be lower over the lifetime of a building. This Government will continue to work on refining this risk-cost balance with the sector. 
In response to claims that the Building Act creates unnecessary bureaucracy and costs I note that the World Bank’s  
Doing Business in 2008 
 report includes a section that compares the regulatory requirements and costs to businesses of building a warehouse. On this measure we are ranked in second place while Australia is ranked 52nd out of 178 countries. 
I thank the Social Services Committee which is chaired by Russell Fairbrother for its excellent work. There have been a number of minor amendments and these should help in producing a workable piece of legislation. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction’s predecessor the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for introducing the bill and I thank the interest groups and those who made submissions on the bill. I am pleased to commend the Building Amendment Bill to the House.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection.
Turner Judy: Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turner Judy: Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my bill set down for consideration which is the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Question time resumed.
Vote: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1 Independent: Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Through you Mr Deputy Speaker—and I am sure I have the support of the House—may I invite Mr Russell Fairbrother if he is up to it to seek leave to speak for a further 5 minutes? We heard from him in relation to the ACT party that I had learnt to dance and Heather Roy had learnt to be a soldier and defend the country. What we did not hear was what he had achieved— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide— 
RODNEY HIDE 
:—other than to lose his safe Labour seat— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order ! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I think he should stand up in the House and say what he has been doing for 2 years. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he does not want to. He has got nothing to say. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order and by following what you were saying you were actually interjecting on your own point of order. But I will not do anything about it. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s why we love you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7724. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] Chris Carter can interrupt all he likes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order only. There will be no chit-chat. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I just want to respond to David Cunliffe’s vicious attack in his point of order and to ask whether we could have 5 minutes silence while I recover. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is tit for tat.
Cunliffe David: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7724. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of a potential point of misrepresentation in the member’s speech. He may wish to clarify it. My sense is that he was opposing the “anti-scam bill” not the “anti-spam bill”. Would the member be able to clarify that? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That should not have been raised by the Minister.
Stewart Barbara: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Stewart Barbara: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. We do support this bill. We believe we need to see some action on spam as it is an increasing problem on our computers. [ 
Interruption 
] I think everybody in this House—even Sandra Goudie—would agree here. The spammers need to be stopped. Even here in Parliament it is a huge problem and I would have thought that if these messages could have been stopped the parliamentary information technology team would have stopped them. However the spammers can now bypass any filter and the junk emails block up our whole email system. 
This bill takes an opt-in approach which I hope the Internet service providers can use when they take some action. When I looked at the most recent figures I saw that in June 2006 worldwide 55 billion spam emails were generated on a daily basis which is a huge amount. Of course 80 to 90 percent of the email traffic is spam. The bottom line is we are very tired of all the articles and deals for products we read about on our emails. Very few people would even bother to buy them off the Net. The same messages seem to come from heaps of different sources. They are totally unsolicited and unwanted and they block up all the genuine mail that is sent to everybody. They are totally impossible to block from our computers. Even if one uses the unsubscribe option it does not seem to even vaguely work which is a real problem. 
We believe that here in New Zealand we are absolutely drowning in spam and that it is becoming a totally impossible thing to try to manage. The problem does need a worldwide strategy and worldwide action because it is a challenge right throughout the world. By itself New Zealand can do absolutely nothing. It is very unfortunate that this legislation can apply only to messages generated within New Zealand. We know it cannot apply to all emails sent to a New Zealand email address from an overseas location which obviously we cannot control. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Invest in Nigeria. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: As it stands smart operators can easily migrate to Nigeria as the member said to arrange for their messages to be sent from an overseas address and be totally above this law we are passing here today. However the legislation does make it very plain that New Zealand is not a safe haven for spammers while at the same time it also provides a basis for international cooperation on combating spam. We need to do that. This is an important bill and one that New Zealand First wants to see have its provisions implemented as far as it is possible to do so. We definitely support this bill.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 April 2007” and substitute “1 April 2009”.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 15 be agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Copeland Gordon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 14. I do so with some experience of risk management ratios from my business background. The facts of this matter are fairly straightforward. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has set itself a risk management ratio of 111 percent. In other words its assets at any given point in time will exceed its liabilities by 111 percent. However the present situation according to figures supplied by ACC is that the employers’ account presently has a cover of 163 percent. In doing the sums quickly in our mind we find that this is 52 percent higher than the risk ratio established by the corporation. Pansy Wong’s amendment very reasonably suggests that 163 percent ratio figure could be reduced by way of a refund to a ratio of 120 percent which is still 9 percent higher than the self-imposed risk ratio that the board of ACC itself adopted. 
When this matter was brought to my attention by the member Pansy Wong I was quite staggered. I have done the sums. The reduction that Pansy Wong is seeking amounts to $468 million. The plain fact is that employers have been already overcharged that amount and more. I find that absolutely outrageous. The employers of this country have been overcharged levies by an amount way over $500 million. That money should never have been collected in the first place because the risk management ratio was already satisfied and this figure is well in excess. Therefore the only just thing to do in those circumstances is to give the money back. The money does not belong to the ACC; it belongs to the ACC only if it comes within the corporation’s own defined policy of risk management. 
I heard briefly the statement made by the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson about ebbs and flows and I can understand that. But I say to the Minister that it is more than an ebb and flow when the ratio goes from 111 percent to 163 percent and when the corporation is collecting more than $500 million extra. That is not an ebb and flow. That in my opinion amounts to a deliberate concerted campaign of overcharging employers over an extended period of time. It is wrong. It should stop. The money should be given back. It does not morally belong to the Government in the first place. It belongs back in the pockets of those employers. 
Therefore as a caucus we had little hesitation in agreeing to support Pansy Wong’s amendment because it is the right thing to do.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 175 in clause 11 the following new section: 
175BProvision of forecast statement of financial performance 
ACC must provide yearly a forecast statement of financial performance for the next 5 years to allow levy funders to analyse current premium-setting performance against projected outcomes.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 175 in clause 11 the following new section: 
175AIndependent auditing of proposed premiums 
ACC proposed premiums and the rationale for such premiums must be audited by independent third party actuaries yearly (and the result made public) to ensure transparency in the premium-setting process.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Finlayson Christopher: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I wish to address the House only briefly on this matter in the third readings of these bills because I think that most of the arguments were adequately raised in the second reading and during the Committee of the whole House. As I explained the original age for retirement of judges certainly in the High Court was 72. It was then reduced to 68 after the report of the Royal Commission on the Courts chaired by the late Sir David Beattie in the late 1970s. So that I could say something new in the third readings a few days ago I looked up that report of the royal commission. Paragraph 685 talked about the statutory requirement age of 72 for judges being out of line with the generally accepted retirement age for most public offices the civil service and the business community. Indeed at that time magistrates—as they then were—had to retire at age 68 although there was provision for them to be removed from office in certain circumstances before that age. 
Sir David referred to the report of the Magistrates’ Executive which told the royal commission about the general pace and pressure of work in the Magistrate’s Court having increased substantially in recent years and that it was essential that a magistrate be able to give “of his best every hour of his judicial career. Concentration and standards cannot be relaxed at any time and further that the maintenance of a high standard of judicial determination until age 68 may in some cases become difficult.” So in fact the royal commission then was recommending that the normal retiring age for judges of the High Court and District Court should be reduced to 65. As it turned out the age was reduced to 68. As I said in both the second reading and Committee debates there is simply no justification for such a low retirement age now for reasons that have already been advanced. 
So National supports the third readings of these bills says that the legislation is timely and notes what the Law Society said which was that the age for retirement could really be 72. It may well come to that. It may even be higher in years to come. But 70 is an appropriate age at this time and that is why the National Party supports the third readings of these bills.