edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am wondering whether you could assist me. The issue that I would like you to have a look at is that some time ago the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri personally approached the clerk of the Maori Affairs Committee—he did not go through the select committee itself—to ask the select committee to request that the Maori Trustee make a submission to the select committee. I am not sure why that was but he approached the clerk of the select committee to ask the select committee to request the Maori Trustee to make a submission to it. I wonder whether you could have a wee look at that issue to see whether there was any impropriety. I think there was. I think the Maori Trustee was not too keen on making— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have got the point. I am happy to look at it.
Street Maryan: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Trade 
: I move  
That the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
 that the committee finally report to the House on or before 30 June 2008 notwithstanding Standing Order 291(1) and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region during sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16033. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava ni hao and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure indeed to speak in support of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill. This bill will enable the free-trade agreement to be brought into force by making the necessary amendments to the appropriate legislation around tariff rates issuing of certificates of origin for goods exported from New Zealand to China and compliance by New Zealand for the conformity cooperation agreement.  
The signing of the free-trade agreement is an enormous and historic achievement for New Zealand and our Labour-led Government. We are the first developed country to negotiate such an agreement with China and we are extremely proud of this. China is the world’s fastest-growing economy and one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing export markets. It is an agreement that is strategically important for New Zealand’s economy and it is of real benefit to Kiwi businesses. The elimination of tariffs on 96 percent of New Zealand’s exports to China gives a distinct advantage to businesses here that are looking for opportunities in China.  
Many of our business leaders have commented how supportive they are of the free-trade agreement with China. Let me give a couple of quotes. Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand said: “It is a very good deal. It is actually more comprehensive than most of us had hoped for.” Of course Ngai Tahu’s general manager Geoff Hipkins whose tribe’s fishing arm exports more than $100 million of live lobster to China and large amounts of paua said that the deal had amazing potential: “The sky’s the limit really.” In my Mana electorate the Porirua City Council and Business Porirua are already talking with their sister city in China Yangzhou and of course they are looking at trade missions. The local is global. I want to thank the Hon Phil Goff and I thank New Zealand and China for the vision.
King Annette: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that Mr Harawira the member who has just spoken did not mean to mislead Parliament or the listening public but I think on two occasions he claimed that a person outside this House was a member of this House. That is not correct. I do not think that he should continue to do that; anyone in this House could make that claim but we would be knowingly misleading Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16017. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he been informed that more than 200 people per day travel from Kapiti District to Wellington Hospital for treatment passing Kenepuru Hospital on the way and will he instruct the new chief executive of Capital and Coast District Health Board to undertake immediate long-term consideration of how to meet Kapiti coast and Porirua districts’ health needs? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Wellington Hospital provides specialist tertiary and secondary services for the Capital and Coast District Health Board catchment area and tertiary services for nearly a million people in central New Zealand. It has scarce clinical expertise and sophisticated diagnostic and other clinical equipment that cannot be duplicated across every community facility. That means inevitably that some people will have to travel to receive services and that is why it assists its constituents by providing free transport services to its Wellington facilities. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the Kapiti area is one of the fastest growing in New Zealand and a major retirement district and does health planning include making retired people drive long distances for hospital health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Today’s bench mate constantly reminds me of the attractiveness of the area so I am aware of the issue. I am advised that to meet increased demand the district health board has increased the number of out-patient services provided in the Kapiti Health Centre from 6000 to 8000 a year over the past 2 years. The district health board also aims to provide as many out-patient services as possible close to where people live in the Kapiti and Kenepuru areas as well as providing free bus services from Kenepuru to Wellington Hospital. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister feel that the Government has an obligation to ensure that people who have paid taxes all of their lives are not marginalised in their retirement because health facilities are reduced and centralised? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes the member makes a good point. The Government takes seriously its obligations to maintain service provision and ensures district health boards meet this obligation by agreeing to maintain services through their district annual plans. These are formal accountability documents between district health boards and the Minister. The district health boards are facilitated to provide those services in the face of cost and population pressures through the annual funding adjustments.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16015. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcements have been made regarding the energy-efficient retrofit programme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 In response to a Green Party Budget initiative it was today announced that the energy-efficient retrofit programme will be boosted by $53.4 million in Budget 2008 effectively doubling the pace of the programme. The remaining 21000 eligible State houses will now be insulated within 5 years bringing timely relief to households that are squeezed by rising fuel and energy costs. I wish to offer my congratulations to Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party on their development of this initiative.  
Lesley Soper 
: What other initiatives does the Labour-led Government have in place to improve the health and well-being of State house tenants? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: One highly successful initiative the Healthy Housing programme has helped 6000 households to date by providing housing modifications and improving tenants’ access to health and social services. That has seen a 37 percent reduction in potentially avoidable hospitalisations not only generating significant savings for the health sector but benefiting families obviously through better health. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What effect does the Minister expect this initiative to have on the 50 percent of State house tenants who are children? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I think it would be best if I were to tell the House what I have in mind at the moment which is a little boy who lives in Huntly whom I met some time ago. Prior to the retrofitting of the house of this boy’s family he was regularly admitted to hospital in the grip of terrifying asthma attacks. When I met this child after the house was retrofitted he was bouncing around like any healthy little boy whom we would expect to be bouncing around. That is the best description that I can give of the effects of this programme. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party that in these days of rising power prices we need to look after the most vulnerable people in society and that after the completion of this initiative we should investigate standards for private sector rental housing as signalled in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I absolutely agree that we always need to look after the most vulnerable people in our society and I note further that the State needs to get its own houses in order before it points the finger at private landlords. But I also note that this is a work stream in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which is addressing this issue currently.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What reports has she received that recognise progress made in advancing the participation of disabled people across New Zealand society? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 Earlier today I was honoured to receive the prestigious Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award from the Governor-General on behalf of the Labour-led Government and on behalf of all New Zealanders who have worked so hard towards the goal of full participation of disabled citizens. I have been told that for the first time in the history of the Roosevelt award there was no debate between committee members about which country should receive it. New Zealand stood out as the clear and unanimous choice. This recognises the extraordinary leadership that New Zealand has shown in this area. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How does the Roosevelt award recognise the role of the non-governmental sector in working towards an inclusive New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Partnership with disabled people has been critical to delivering and implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy which has been applauded through the Roosevelt award. I am therefore very pleased to say that part of the award is a US$50000 grant to be given to an outstanding non-governmental disability organisation in our winning country. The Disabled Persons Assembly has been awarded this funding in order to promote the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a major ongoing event in the lives of New Zealanders. It will also create a diversity action programme using disabled people as teachers.
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House acknowledge the devastating impact of the 7.9 magnitude earthquake in the Sichuan province of China with the death toll standing at 13000 and rising; note that this earthquake is the worst suffered by China in three decades; extend its heartfelt sympathy to the victims their families the people of China and the Chinese Government; and hope that in future there will be more cooperation between our two countries in sharing expertise on earthquake detection technology to minimise fatalities 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 May priority will be given to the first readings of the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill the Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day and Thursday of course is Budget day.
Peters Winston: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My party and I am certain this is the case with every party would have no objection but rather would offer encouragement in respect of what the member seeks. But there is a certain matter of courtesy here and that member should have been required to consult the other political parties in this House. I am just making that known to her because she did not do us the courtesy of doing that. Notwithstanding that we will still support her motion.
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The notice of motion is on the Order Paper and is a non-debatable motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a non-debatable motion so members are clear about that.
Hughes Darren: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member means “without notice” rather than “with notice” and presumably she also means a non-debatable motion. She will read out what is in her name on the Order Paper. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Perhaps the member would like to start again because she said “with notice”. Would you please read it out if there is a notice on the Order Paper.
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move with notice a motion in my name with regard to the earthquake in the Sichuan province of China.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Leader of the House indicated to the Business Committee on Tuesday that he would be giving formal notice of that on Tuesday. Under Standing Order 55 we could have a Thursday evening sitting of the House if that is advised to the committee on Tuesday. That will give us a normal Thursday evening sitting from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. so members should anticipate that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was that a yes or a no? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am happy to read the entire Standing Order out to the member if he wants me to. If the Government advises of that on Tuesday which the Leader of the House has already indicated he will do then that will mean that urgency will be taken and there will be legislation for Budget night.
English Bill: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could tell us in the light of a speech made today by Dr Cullen about tax cuts whether there will be urgency after the Budget.
Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Motions 
Earthquake—Sichuan China 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move with notice a motion in my name with regard to the earthquake in the Sichuan province of China. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member means “without notice” rather than “with notice” and presumably she also means a non-debatable motion. She will read out what is in her name on the Order Paper. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Perhaps the member would like to start again because she said “with notice”. Would you please read it out if there is a notice on the Order Paper. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The notice of motion is on the Order Paper and is a non-debatable motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a non-debatable motion so members are clear about that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My party and I am certain this is the case with every party would have no objection but rather would offer encouragement in respect of what the member seeks. But there is a certain matter of courtesy here and that member should have been required to consult the other political parties in this House. I am just making that known to her because she did not do us the courtesy of doing that. Notwithstanding that we will still support her motion. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House acknowledge the devastating impact of the 7.9 magnitude earthquake in the Sichuan province of China with the death toll standing at 13000 and rising; note that this earthquake is the worst suffered by China in three decades; extend its heartfelt sympathy to the victims their families the people of China and the Chinese Government; and hope that in future there will be more cooperation between our two countries in sharing expertise on earthquake detection technology to minimise fatalities 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:15999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 15 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 May priority will be given to the first readings of the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill the Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day and Thursday of course is Budget day.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could tell us in the light of a speech made today by Dr Cullen about tax cuts whether there will be urgency after the Budget.  
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Leader of the House indicated to the Business Committee on Tuesday that he would be giving formal notice of that on Tuesday. Under Standing Order 55 we could have a Thursday evening sitting of the House if that is advised to the committee on Tuesday. That will give us a normal Thursday evening sitting from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. so members should anticipate that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was that a yes or a no? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am happy to read the entire Standing Order out to the member if he wants me to. If the Government advises of that on Tuesday which the Leader of the House has already indicated he will do then that will mean that urgency will be taken and there will be legislation for Budget night.
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If we have members rising to take a call and the motion cannot be moved by 6 o’clock we will be here from 7 o’clock onwards. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will report progress. [ 
Interruption 
] We could well be here until 7 o’clock—or longer—if that is repeated.  
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Worth Richard: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18583. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in support of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee; Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee; Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18577. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: I move  
That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration.  
This bill relates to New Zealand ratifying the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict commonly called the 1954 Hague convention and its two protocols. I am sure that members will be aware that the 1954 Hague convention arose out of the experience in World War II when the Nazis in particular were prone to stealing the cultural properties of other nations that they had invaded and occupied. Vast amounts of cultural treasures were translated into Germany some never to be seen again. New Zealand ratified the convention in Paris on 24 July this year and the bill enables us to accede to the two protocols to the Hague convention. The convention and its protocols work for cultural property in a similar way that the Geneva convention and its protocols do to safeguard civilians in the event of armed conflict.  
The bill has three main relatively simple purposes: to create a number of criminal offences in relation to cultural property to prohibit trade in cultural property removed from occupied territory and to prevent unauthorised use of the convention emblem. Accession to the two protocols will reinforce our participation in the Unesco family as a champion of the protection of cultural property.
Bennett Paula: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18572. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like to ask a question of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker with regard to new section 2BAA “Civil union includes immediately preceding de facto relationship” in clause 77. I certainly have some questions around that provision and I did not sit on the Social Services Committee. New section 2BAA states: “For the purposes of this Act if a civil union was immediately preceded by a de facto relationship between the 2 civil union partners (‘A’ and ‘B’) the de facto relationship must be treated as if it were part of the civil union.” An example of civil union is then given: “If the de facto relationship of A and B lasts 1 year and their civil union lasts 2 years the civil union must be treated as if it—(a) began 3 years ago; and (b) lasted 3 years.”  
That of course raises many questions. How do we know whether people were in a de facto relationship? Are we insisting a little bit like we do with some other legislation that they show they incurred bills together and were living in the same premises? Under what definition is a relationship a de facto relationship? There are certainly questions around how to prove that.  
A Minister’s speech-writer wrote about “triples”. I wonder whether a triple relationship would come into a civil union relationship if the relationship is a de facto one. I wonder how that would fit in. I am not quite sure what “triple relationship” means but we certainly heard the issue raised in one of the speeches from the other side. If people were in a de facto relationship for some time how do we define the de facto relationship? Is it defined as two people living together and sharing the bills? What happens if it is a triple relationship as has been mentioned by Labour members earlier? How would that work in regard to the Property (Relationships) Act which Part 11 amends?
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move that the Committee report progress 
.
Wong Pansy: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18554. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker who has just resumed his seat is Harry Duynhoven who just typifies the concern the public have. Labour is now so bereft of any ideas that it resorts to announcing National’s policy. Labour has nothing to say. The member had nothing to say about the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill. It is amazing that 9 long years ago the Labour Government thumped the table over what Max Bradford did. Does this bill reverse anything of the 1998 electricity industry reforms? What happened to Labour’s vision for energy security for New Zealanders? Where is the vision? I want to ask this question on behalf of the New Zealand public particularly the good people who live in Botany Downs who told me they are sick of hearing every winter a debate about whether there will be power cut or a blackout. Would the passage of this bill save New Zealanders from facing the awful threat of power cuts and blackouts every year?  
National will support this bill although I doubt very much that sneaking this little bill in under urgency—in the midst of the vacuum the total lack of vision concerning security of energy supply for New Zealanders—will save anyone from reliving the nightmare of the last 9 years. This is a very timid approach to electricity industry reform but unfortunately like the rest of the public we have stopped expecting any vision or any bold movements. A little bit of an improvement is almost welcome because unfortunately there is nothing on offer. So I just want to tell Labour members that although they are continuing to run out of ideas they should stop stealing National’s policies.  
It is a pleasure for me to take a short call on this short bill. It shows a lack of vision and I think it deserves only a short sharp rebuttal from members on this side of the House because I do not believe that rushing this bill through under urgency will convince New Zealanders that the 9-year nightmare of threats of power cuts will be resolved.
Dalziel Lianne: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18552. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy 
: I move  
That the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Electricity Industry Reform Act of 1998 required ownership separation between electricity lines companies and electricity supply companies in order to facilitate competition in the electricity industry. I actually recall being in the House when that particular interesting legislation was passed and I recall Max Bradford being the Minister responsible for it. I also recall the promises of lower costs of electricity but that was not to be.  
The reason for this amendment bill is to follow up on amendments passed in 2001 and 2003 which allowed electricity lines businesses to own generation up to specified quantities if they complied with corporate separation and arm’s-length rules. This bill seeks to encourage lines companies to invest in permitted generation particularly renewable generation. It proposes to achieve that by relaxing some of the corporate separation and arm’s-length rules relating to generation and retailing and by allowing electricity lines businesses to sell more electricity to hedge the output of their generation and to invest in generation and retail without limit outside their own lines areas.  
Of course this bill has been to a select committee since the time it was introduced so I feel that that is sufficient for my contribution on the second reading of this important legislation. I recommend the bill to the House.
Swain Paul: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Swain Paul: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 In the minute that has been allocated to me it will be very difficult to traverse the work—the thorough work—of the Commerce Committee on the Commerce Amendment Bill. But I will say that as the previous member outlined anything to do with commerce and competition requires a very delicate balance. If we get it wrong if the balance is too heavy in one way or too light in the other it creates perverse outcomes. That is no more so than with electricity. We know that electricity lines companies are monopolies so if we regulate them in too tough a way it then means that boards do not have to do much and they blame the Government—if the lights go out it is the fault of the Government for setting the regulations at too tough a level and for not allowing enough retained earnings for putting back into capital expenditure. If companies are regulated too lightly then there is the opportunity for a monopoly to gouge and for consumers who have no other alternative means of access to electricity to have to pay monopoly rents.  
This is a very delicate business and in my view the select committee worked extremely diligently on this legislation to improve the balance in a number of areas. I think the committee worked extremely well and I think that as a result the balance in this area which will have to be looked at continually from time to time has been much improved. I support the passage of this bill.
Jones Dail: Walking Access Bill — In Committee; Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Walking Access Bill — In Committee; Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I believe that some consideration will have to be given in the Government Administration Committee to the definition of movable and immovable property. This has been touched on by an earlier speaker. “Movable property” and “immovable property” are terms that are not usually used in New Zealand land law. We usually refer to real estate or personal property; movable and immovable property are terms from European civil law. I expect that in the select committee a clearer definition will have to be given of what is intended and that we will go back to Roman law principles and suchlike. So that matter will need to be clarified. 
I suppose that if this legislation had been in force during the Greek civil war the damage to the Acropolis might not have been undertaken because the Greeks kept their ammunition in the Acropolis and one day inevitably it blew up to a large extent. One thinks of course of New Zealand’s efforts in the Second World War and of what happened at Monte Cassino. The Germans were ensconced there and of course the inevitable action was taken to try to get them out. Those problems do arise. 
If we read the bill and look at Part 2 which relates to offences we see that this part makes it clear that an offence is committed only if the act is intentional and the person either knew or had reason to believe that the property was cultural property. In addition the act must occur in the situation of hostilities. Again an offence is not committed if the person is acting in accordance with the convention and the second protocol—for example if the person is acting by imperative military necessary. Imperative military necessity is explained in article 6 of the second protocol. 
Further offences relate to cultural property removed from occupied territory. Clause 15 creates new offences of removing cultural property unlawfully from the territory of a party to the first protocol other than New Zealand while the territory is under occupation. Clause 17 creates new offences of dealing in smuggled property or in enhanced protection smuggled property. The offences apply only to things done in New Zealand. 
This is one of those bills where the bill itself is 32 pages long but the schedules are 54 pages long and it will be a very interesting time working them all out in the select committee. New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee and on the face of it it supports it generally.
Tisch Lindsay: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Commerce Amendment Bill has been an interesting exercise. It has been a fundamental rewrite of the Commerce Act’s provisions relating to regulation of the sectors with little or no competition or prospect of competition. The new purpose statement in Part 4 in new section 52A(1) substituted in clause 4 states that the bill’s purpose is “to promote the long-term benefit of consumers …” such that suppliers “(a) have incentives to innovate and to invest … (b) have incentives to improve efficiency and provide services at a quality …  (c) share with consumers the benefits of efficiency gains … and (d) are limited in their ability to extract excessive profits.”  
The bill we have debated provides the Government with many more tools for regulating other than the imposition of price controls including information disclosure negotiation or arbitration of a regime a price control path and customised price control. Of course the test will be whether to regulate and that has changed. There will be only one process after deciding whether to regulate and how to regulate rather than two separate processes. This is very complex law it is very technical with wide-ranging implications I have to say that will make it difficult for policy makers to predict the outcome.  
National will be watching very closely as we monitor the progress of this bill under the Commerce Commission to see that the points we have raised will be realised. There was a question mark over resources and how the changes will be able to be implemented in the time frame that has been set. I have been assured by the Minister during the Committee stage that the time frames for the transitional changes are shorter than have certainly been mooted before. That is a good sign. However we will be monitoring those as we go through. Good commercial law depends very much on sound and reliable implementation by both the independent agencies and Ministers. With those points considered National is happy to support the third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18544. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I continue this debate in the spirit of people genuinely wanting to debate these issues. The provisions relating to the input methodologies are the most important provisions in this bill apart from the introduction of a purpose statement for this particular part. Given that these rules determine how financial statements should be prepared for regulatory purposes they actually allow the Commerce Commission to identify whether a natural monopoly business is taking monopoly rents. So they are the fundamental part of any form of regulatory control under the legislation including the very light-handed information disclosure regime that we have just mentioned.  
I think the member is asking me to set the input methodologies; we are not doing that. That is the Commerce Commission’s role and it will be doing that by 2010. Asset valuations could use the optimised deprival value they could use the optimised depreciative replacement cost method and they could use the depreciated historic cost method. I think the member has gone through some of those options and asked me to define what it should be. The whole point of defining them up front is so that businesses have certainty going forward about how the Commerce Commission will interpret their obligations to report on their financial statements under any of the regimes included under the Act. That is the same with asset revaluations the allocation of common costs taxation and the cost of capital.  
That is the purpose of getting the input methodologies done ahead of time—so that there is certainty. I will not pick and choose which one I might prefer for any particular purpose but we will have an input methodology that deals with asset valuations and there will be certainty. That is the key point of this bill.
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18543. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Again I am very grateful to the member. I was just jotting down and checking my recollection of what had happened. We have resourced the Commerce Commission to develop the input methodologies. It is a specific allocation for it to do that. The commission has already issued a discussion document with both the process and the timetable included in it. It intends to hold a conference on all the input methodologies in February 2010 so that is after it has consulted on all of the individual input methodologies. It plans to have it determined by mid-2010 in accordance with the legislation with 20 days then allowed for appeal.
Swain Paul: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Swain Paul: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just missed the last couple of points so I wonder whether the member would like to clarify what he was saying.
Brown Peter: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I have a little problem. I have a member away whom I did not know would be away. I would like in the first instance to seek leave for the two New Zealand First members who are away attending the Hon Brian Donnelly’s investiture to be counted as being in this House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection?
Tisch Lindsay: Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Following on from my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Richard Worth I say that the debate on the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill has been very interesting. During the Commerce Committee hearings a lot of information came out. As I said in my previous speech the genesis of the bill came from the court case heard back in 2000. A Law Commission report came out following that recommending that these changes be made. We welcome the clarification that the bill brings to these difficult issues. We need to make sure that in company buy-outs the rights of minority shareholders are protected and this bill addresses that. So we welcome the clarification provided by this bill. We support the reasonably simple approach taken in it. This legislation does protect those who disagree with substantial changes being made to a business entity right at the start of a new entity coming together. Having made those points I say National is very happy to support the bill. 
Debate interrupted.
Swain Paul: Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Swain Paul: Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh no! Come on! He doesn’t know anything. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Gerry Brownlee must be getting tired. He is usually a very calm and mild-mannered man. But here he is on Friday getting a bit agitated and grumpy. There is not long to go now.  
The previous speaker Dr Richard Worth made a good contribution on the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill. He started by introducing a bit of politics into the debate so I must respond to that. The Minister of Commerce has said publicly and rightly so—and I agree with her because I used to be the Minister of Commerce—that in 1999 the Labour-led Government inherited a regulatory wasteland. The member has the effrontery to criticise us for taking 8 years to sort this issue out. We have had a massive agenda a massive programme of doing things in order to get back to protecting some of the rights of people which this bill looks to do. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: There is no excuse for perpetuating an injustice though—no excuse. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member says there is no excuse for it. We had to start from scratch. There has not been sufficient time to do it all. That is why we need another 3 years and then another 3 years as undoubtedly will happen.  
But I digress. This is good legislation. It is designed to help those shareholders who want to buy out when an action is taken that they do not agree with. If the share price that is set is not agreed to by the minority share owner then there is the ability to get arbitration and some resolution on the issue of the value of the shares. This is good legislation and it will progress because of that and because of the good work that the Commerce Committee did when studying the bill.
Cullen Michael: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Courts 
: I move  
That the Adoption Amendment Bill the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 7) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill the Family Protection Amendment Bill the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Amendment Bill the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I will just speak very briefly to the motion. The House has accorded strong support to this legislation proceeding through all its stages and careful but reasonably well accelerated consideration was given to this legislation in the Social Services Committee when it formed part of the Family Courts Matters Bill. I particularly thank all those members who participated in the Committee stage of the legislation for their thoughtful comments. I notice that Dr Paul Hutchison and I think Paula Bennett and Chester Borrows took part in the Committee stage of this legislation.  
I think this is an area where traditionally the House has tended to try to adopt a relatively non-partisan approach recognising that Family Court matters involve some of the most difficult and sensitive matters in our judicial system and usually deal with people who are at very difficult points in their lives. I think quite properly that members have stressed the fact that in proceedings before the court the interests of the children particularly need to be paramount.