edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10962] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10959] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I would like to take just a quick call on Part 1. I understand that we are confined to Supplementary Order Paper 133 but when we look at what those omissions are about they are about enabling the original bill debated in the Committee stage 2 weeks ago to be changed and divided into two bills. One bill will continue to be the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and do all the things we find in clause 4 in relation to general damages and aiding the process of resolving leaky homes. The second which we will be debating in Part 3 is because in the mess that comes before this House there is another set of amendments to another whole bill that is completely outside the scope of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
So in debating this very tight Supplementary Order Paper’s clauses and changes to Part 1 of the original bill it is almost like a Trojan Horse because it is the mechanism for allowing changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill to be entered into this Parliament and debated. That is offensive. I find that a perversion of the processes of this House. I say to the Minister that it was only 2 weeks ago that we were debating the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. If he had changes to make why were they not made then? 
The whole point of the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 is about allowing the Minister to make changes to a bill unrelated to the bill before the Committee to fix up a mess that the Minister has got himself into because he would not listen to local bodies. I find it amazing that we are in this position. 
I realise that we are under very tight restrictions in this debate and I look forward to the Minister taking an active part in dealing with Part 3 and explaining to the Committee how we got into this pickle. But I make the point again that the only reason we have these amendments to Part 1 is that the Minister has to cover up his incompetence by splitting the bill into two and perverting the whole parliamentary process to allow him to fix up his botch-ups.
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10957] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Perhaps members have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. I think the point my colleague Dr Smith is making is that if members accept what my colleague Darren Hughes has proposed and debate the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper before them then following those amendments they will vote on a new Part 1 as amended so surely that gives them the right to debate Part 1 in full. The Minister may want to make some amendments but this Committee still has to pass Part 1 with those amendments. So it surely has the right to debate Part 1 including the amendments that are being made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise members that the question before the Committee is that Part 1 stand part. However the debate is limited to the consideration of the amendments proposed to Part 1. I am prepared to listen to the debate and consider it as it progresses and if I think members are going too wide then I will use the motion. [ 
Interruption 
] We have decided I say to Mr Carter.
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10957] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Putting the hyperbole about the constitution of the country aside when Mr Carter refers to clause 3 at the beginning of the Supplementary Order Paper that is actually a separate question—that will be the third question members debate. The first question members are debating is under the heading “Heading to Part 1” where we have new clauses 3A 4 and 5. That is the limit of the debate as it affects Part 1. It is not a general free-for-all across Part 1. Dr Smith shakes his head but that is what the motion putting the House into Committee states. It is so that members can debate Part 1 as it is affected by these clauses here but it is not a free-for-all across all of Part 1. Although the two members giggle away there that seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of what the motion was from the House.
Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10957] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Can I just get clarification so that I can understand if I make a contribution whether I am within the scope of your ruling. My understanding was that the motion was to allow members to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133. I understand that is correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister’s amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Right—and that allows members to debate it. Therefore if we look under “Heading to Part 1” we see it states: “To omit ‘General Provisions’ …”. The heading refers to that. It states that very clearly in the Supplementary Order Paper I have before me unless there has been an alteration—in which case members are entitled to debate the heading to Part 1 and the amendment omitting “General provisions” and substituting “Purpose and application of Part 2”. That then allows members to make contributions to that amendment. 
As I said earlier members cannot debate the heading without debating the intent and if they are debating the intent then they are allowed to debate what the intent means. Therefore it gives them the ability to have a debate on the provisions of Part 1. So although I understand that you will listen carefully Mr Chairperson I would just say that you need to give members guidance as to what that actually means because some members would interpret that as meaning they are able to cross over to the intent of the bill and to its provisions and the purposes because that is stated in the Standing Orders. That was in the motion passed by the House—which we opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. In consideration of what the member has said the debate will be taken in so far as the points are relevant to the debate.
Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10956] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To add to what my colleague Nick Smith has said the fact is that this is what happens when the Government ends up suspending the Standing Orders in order to interfere with the constitution of this country and the Standing Orders. Now members find themselves in difficulty. 
If members look at Supplementary Order Paper 133 it states under the heading “Clause 3”: “To omit this clause (lines 1 to 3 on page 2).” Then it states under the heading “Heading to Part 1”: “To omit ‘General provisions’ …”—you have just referred to them Mr Chairperson—‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” The fact is that one cannot make an alteration to Part 1 without debating it. Members have the right to debate Part 1 as my colleague Nick Smith just did. The fact is that this is referring to Part 1. 
I would just draw it to the attention of the Committee and in particular to you Mr Chairperson that my colleague Nick Smith is absolutely right. When we say we are to change the heading to Part 1 that means it allows us to talk about the heading. When we start talking about the heading we cannot of course talk just about the heading without advising the Committee of the whole House so it can make decisions around what is behind the heading. 
My colleague Nick Smith was absolutely correct in setting out what was intended in Part 1 so that members could make sure they had the correct heading so that as a consequence they could decide whether they were debating the right form of words under Part 1. It states that very clearly right at the very beginning. Nick Smith is absolutely right and I support him entirely. 
Members should be able to debate Part 1 and the words and the intent behind them because that is what Supplementary Order Paper 133 states. It is set out very clearly. People like myself and Nick Smith who have been around for a long time understand these things. Members are entitled to debate Part 1. That is absolutely obvious.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10956] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate Mr Chairperson you said that members were debating Part 1. I ask whether members are debating Part 1 or debating Part 3 which would include the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Mr Chairperson you said very distinctly at the beginning of the Committee stage that members were debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10956] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I would just say that the motion that the House agreed to was specifically that the bill be recommitted for the purposes of considering the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill.
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is using the point of order process to conduct a debate in part. In response to his main issue which seems to be what the Committee can debate the House has been put into Committee on the motion of the Minister which was that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. That is the motion the House voted on to come into Committee. It is very clear what the House wanted us to debate. It is what is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I do not see how the—[ 
Interruption 
] I am being interjected on during a point of order. But it seems to me that is quite tight. The Supplementary Order Paper had been sitting on the Table of the House before the House went into Committee which is standard with Supplementary Order Papers in the Minister’s name. So I think members should proceed with the debate as was intended by the motion that they voted on.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have listened very carefully to what the member has said. The difficulty I have as the Chair is that I am governed by the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. It is also shown deliberately here on the schedule of proposed questions that we can consider only the amendments. I will be lenient with my interpretation of that but I do not want members to go too wide outside the amendments that have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you clarify for the House Mr Chairperson that we are debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and that it would not be within the Standing Orders to debate Part 3 in the course of debating Part 1? It seems that your rulings are somewhat contradictory Mr Chairperson. On the one hand Mr Chairperson you are saying that as a consequence of the motion from the House members can debate only those matters that arise from the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and on the other hand you stated at the beginning of the debate that members were to debate Part 1. It will be either one or the other because there is nothing in Part 1 that includes Supplementary Order Paper 133.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Members are able to debate Part 3 which is on the amendments that have been introduced by the Minister. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate Part 1 under the recommittal motion as per the proper process because they will again have a vote on Part 1. Members will vote again on Part 2 and they will also vote again on Part 3. So as a consequence of the Government’s own sneaky decision to get around the Standing Orders members are required to debate Part 1 of the bill.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10954] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have a very unusual spectacle. It is something that occurs very rarely—that is a motion passed by the majority of this Parliament to overrule the Standing Orders. The Government itself has mismanaged the legislative process that has resulted in this bill having to go back to the Committee stage. I would be very concerned Mr Chairperson if you were to now curtail the contributions from members of the Opposition after the legislative debacle that we have seen and the motion that has involved the suspending of the Standing Orders. 
The Government has referred this bill back for recommittal. It is doing that to get around the process of having to introduce a new bill and in my view it would be quite an abuse of Parliament for you to now restrict members’ contributions. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate every single part of Part 1 because that is what they are required to do.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would just say to the member that it is my understanding that the bill has been debated previously. As set down on the schedule of proposed questions it is stated specifically that the bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I too am guided by the Standing Orders of the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10954] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would just remind members that this bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. That is what the debate is for: to consider the amendments. That is where the debate is. It is a narrow debate.
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10953] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 133 and dividing the bill 
.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10952] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Turei Metiria: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Turei Metiria: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10947] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will make just a very short contribution to the debate to advise the House that we do not make mountains out of molehills. We will be supporting this motion. We think it is infinitely practical that we engage in this debate in order to make the changes that need to be made. Thank you.
Paraone Pita: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Paraone Pita: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10947] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure for me on behalf of New Zealand First to stand in this debate and talk to this motion. Many of the previous speakers’ comments have been unrelated to the motion. I asked myself when we considered whether to support this motion what we are talking about. All we are talking about is a Supplementary Order Paper that is not bailing out the Minister but is about common sense and allowing this issue to be considered with an existing vehicle—that is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
If what a previous spokesperson from the National Party has said is true that our building laws are an absolute mess then is it not incumbent on members of this House to fix up the mess if in fact there is a mess? But there is no mess. This motion is not about a mess in the building industry; it is about providing certainty to local bodies to the building industry and more important to the general public. 
I am sure that National Party members would not want to see local bodies not become accredited in the time frame that has been set at the moment which is 30 November this year. It just seems to me it is practical that we give local bodies all the opportunity we can for them to be able to become accredited by extending the time frame from 30 November this year to 30 June next year. What is wrong with that? Nothing—that is dead right. It is for that reason New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. 
It will not be the last time irrespective of who is in Government when there will be a request to suspend the Standing Orders in this House. I am damned sure that the general public are listening to this debate—some of them from Auckland are still sitting on the motorways in the gridlock of that city. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Their cars will be boiling! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Of course but so will their temperatures be boiling. I would say to National members that although their comments suggest that they think they will be the next Government in 2008 whoever will be sitting on the Treasury benches will not be able to do so without the support of the caucus that I represent in this debate tonight. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. We understand the position the Minister is coming from. It is important that we initiate the intent of this motion as quickly as possible not only for the betterment of Parliament but also for those local bodies who may not be able to meet the present deadline to become accredited. This move is important not only to the building industry but also to the people of New Zealand. Again New Zealand First will be supporting this motion.
Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10945] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to remind the House again that we have a resolution from the Government to suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I noted that the Minister who moved the motion gave no justification for that. He did not address it. I now note that not a single member of the Government intends to speak on that resolution. This is an extremely serious and arrogant— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. The member is making an observation. There is no requirement on the Government or on any mover of a motion to give any justification. It is up to the House to decide whether it thinks there is merit in it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I accept that but the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House in a unicameral Parliament is a very serious resolution for the House to make. In my 17 years in this Parliament I find it unprecedented that a Government would not even give any justification for this Parliament to suspend those Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point is well raised and I thank the member for it. I cannot intervene on the observations you have made.
Simich Clem: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Simich Clem: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10941] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank both members for their contributions. Towards the end of the Minister’s speech he did of course give some reasons—albeit not to the satisfaction of some but that is not relevant here. It is up to members of the House to decide whether he has convinced them that the course of action proposed in the motion should be taken.
Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10940] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion we have before the House is to suspend the Standing Orders—the process by which we introduce a bill have a first reading a second reading and a third reading. It is an incredibly important process for ensuring the scrutiny of legislation. What the Minister wants us to do is to throw out that normal process for scrutiny of a bill. Now I listened all the way through his speech and there was absolutely no justification at all in that speech or even an explanation as to why he should not have to follow the rules followed by any other member or Minister as to the suspension of the rules of the House of Representatives. I ask you to consider whether the Minster in giving a speech actually needs to explain why the Standing Orders of the House have to be suspended.
Hughes Darren: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hughes Darren: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10941] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 First of all the member’s contribution is debatable. That should be the point he takes a call on—to debate whether the House should suspend this in order to do what the Minister has asked. I listened carefully to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. After he moved the motion he explained what he wanted to do at the conclusion of this debate if the House passes it and what he intends to do in the Committee stage when Government order of the day No. 3 is called. So we can now have a debate about whether we should do that and then get onto the substance. It seems to me quite straightforward.
Simich Clem: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10934] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to clauses 1 to 3—one debate with separate questions on all three.
Vote: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10932] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Mark Ron: General Debate 
Mark Ron: General Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:10925] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that the Justice Policy Institute which Dr Pita Sharples has just been talking about is not a Government agency; it is simply an anti-gang group of lefties. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to correct that statement. It is not an anti-gang group of lefties; it is a pro-gang— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I am correcting the statement Mr Assistant Speaker. My statement was incorrect and it misled the House and I was seeking to correct that statement. It is a pro-gang group of lefties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Mark for that. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave of the House to table the document  
Gang Wars 
 which Dr Sharples was speaking of. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave of the House to table the document  
Separating Fact from Fiction: The Truth Behind the Justice Policy Institute report Gang Wars 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave to table a document from Know Gangs in the United States of America which separates fact from fiction. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:650;Page:19286] 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise members that the result of the vote on the motion to appoint members to the Independent Police Complaints Authority was incorrectly announced. The result is Ayes 111 Noes 4. You can relax Dr Cullen.
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction 
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:650;Page:19286] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise members that the result of the vote on the motion to appoint members to the Independent Police Complaints Authority was incorrectly announced. The result is Ayes 111 Noes 4. You can relax Dr Cullen.
Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19286] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is my very great pleasure to follow my most learned colleagues in speaking to the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and National is very proud to be able to support New Zealand authors by supporting the bill. I note that the previous speaker Dail Jones said the bill was in a much better state than it was in previously. In actual fact the bill is in exactly the same state that it was in when it went to the Government Administration Committee; it is Supplementary Order Paper 246 that makes it slightly different. In response to some of the previous comments made I say that yes I am enjoying the love affair that is continuing to grow with my select committee colleagues. I have to say that I will indeed miss the very fine contributions of Dover Samuels who always had a cheery smile and a ready quip which was gratefully accepted. 
We love our books and we love our libraries. They are wonderful institutions in New Zealand and I am delighted that our authors are being recognised and will receive payments according to the criteria set down by the advisory group as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for a payment. I would just like to mention one book  
The Great Brain Robbery 
—and that is no reflection on this Parliament. It is a wonderful book by Tom Scott and Trevor Grice and it raises an issue in respect of the public lending rights of New Zealand authors. The book has two authors so who will the payment be made to? Of course it will be incumbent upon the authors to make a decision about who receives the payment and how they divvy it up according to the degree or percentage of contribution. I certainly extol  
The Great Brain Robbery 
 for any parent wanting to know about teenagers and drugs. It is a wonderful book and it is one of those resources that is readily accessible in our libraries. That is the wonderful thing about our libraries: not everybody can afford to buy a book but people can go along to the library and get the information they seek. 
The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is one way that we can recognise and reward the significant contributions that authors make to support the people of New Zealand in their greater understanding of a wide range of issues. Drugs are one of those issues and a very important one given the devastating effects they have on our children and our families in New Zealand. National is very happy to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and we look forward to working with that legislation in the future. 
Bill read a third time.
Fenton Darien: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19284] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very short call in the third reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill to put on record my pleasure that this bill is being concluded with the support of the parties in the House. I also thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I have worked on that committee for 2 years and it is a very interesting committee. Quite a variety of things come across our table and this was one of the bills we considered even though we did so in a very short time frame as the previous speaker Chris Finlayson said. I enjoyed working with Christopher Finlayson on this bill and I enjoyed seeing the love-fest between Sandra Goudie and Mr Finlayson which is continuing to this very day. 
Hon Member 
: What was this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh yes the member did not hear about that. But this is a very very important bill. 
It was a great pleasure to hear from some of our top authors and from the other people we asked to make submissions to us. That process impressed upon me the real importance of the literary scene in New Zealand—how much it contributes to our society and how generous authors are in sharing that through libraries. I also thank the officials and the department for their work. 
I finish by saying that I have enjoyed working with the other members of the Government Administration Committee on these types of bills. I am pleased that we are getting this bill through on the last day of Parliament in such a good cause. Thank you.
Tizard Judith: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19283] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Great speech! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Ha ha! 
I commend this bill to the House thank the House for its consideration and recognise that the bill has been of particular interest and concern both to the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark—who is of course the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—and to the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Michael Cullen who takes an enormous interest in this issue. 
New Zealand was the first English-speaking country in the world to introduce a scheme to compensate authors for the use of their works in libraries; Norman Kirk’s Labour Government did that in 1973. We saw an attempt to get rid of this scheme but it was maintained by the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act in 1994. This bill will repeal that provision and establish a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors. It is a great measure and I commend all of those who have worked towards it. This Government believes that the work authors do must be recognised and compensated for and this bill does that.
Finlayson Christopher: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19282] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is the heart of the legislation; it establishes the scheme. It disestablishes the Authors’ Fund established by Norman Kirk in 1973 and it provides for the establishment of an advisory group. I do not think I need to detain the Committee for too long on this issue. 
The heart of the matter is clause 10 “Matters that may be dealt with in regulations”. As I said in my second reading speech there were some concerns about the extent of the regulation-making powers. Sir Geoffrey Palmer that zealous constitutionalist thought that the regulation-making power was too broad and that is why in Part 1 we included definitions of “author” “New Zealand author” and “book”. As a consequence of that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper says there will need to be a minor amendment to clause 10(2) to provide that the regulations may add conditions to the definitions of “author” “book” “New Zealand author” and “New Zealand library” and of course we support that because it is a necessary consequential amendment given what we have done in Part 1. 
The advisory group will be established and these are persons who must have appropriate skills to administer the scheme. Importantly the advisory group must include at least one representative from organisations of authors and at least one representative from organisations of librarians. These people will be appointed for a term of not less than 5 years although the terms may be renewed. I think that the way in which the advisory group is set up is sensible. It does not allow capture by a particular group so a broader range of interests will need to be taken into account when determining the way in which the scheme is to operate. I am hopeful the advisory group will work well. I should not have thought it would need to meet all that regularly. Certainly in the initial period there will be quite a lot of work to do but thereafter the only issues that will arise for consideration are the book rate and the frequency with which the book rate is to be altered. 
That is all that one needs to say really about Part 2. It is all pretty straightforward and we can move on.
Jones Dail: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19280] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. It provides for authors to receive annual payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries. 
I have just a couple of points to make on the bill. It is interesting that “New Zealand author” as defined in the income tax legislation is not an author who is a New Zealander but rather anyone in New Zealand who is writing a book that is available in libraries. So it is good to see that a wide range of people can be defined as writers in New Zealand who are not necessarily New Zealanders. The wide range of new immigrants and groups that we have in the country making a contribution will also be entitled to payment in terms of this fund. 
Of course authors have a great habit of criticising members of Parliament but I hope they take into account the fact that here in the dying stages of this Parliament we are rushing through legislation to enable authors to benefit. I hope authors bear that in mind and do not write books criticising parliamentarians for rushing legislation through the House when in fact this last piece of legislation in this session is here to benefit authors. I trust they will take that into account in future.
Vote: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
Vote: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
[Volume:650;Page:19275] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint William Allan Reid Galbraith and Melwyn Purefoy Smith CNZM as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority each for a term of 3 years. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 6; Green Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Jones Dail: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
Jones Dail: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
[Volume:650;Page:19273] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the motion before the House and recommends to His Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of William Allan Reid Galbraith and Melwyn Purefoy Smith CNZM as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. One of the most important roles which goes back to Roman times—and I am not aware of the tag in Latin but in English one asks “who watches the watchers”—is the very role that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has in New Zealand. As members of Parliament we get constant complaints about the way in which police activities are conducted and lawyers also receive complaints about the way in which prosecutions are conducted and evidence is obtained. So it is extremely important that we have a body that inquires into the activities of the police. 
The Independent Police Conduct Authority is a step up from the previous arrangement we had in New Zealand and the appointments of Mr Galbraith and Mr Smith are two very important appointments. Of course mention has been made of Mr Galbraith’s involvement in the  
Rainbow Warrior  
inquiry and that discussion touched on what was happening in this House at the time because the Rt Hon David Lange was the owner of the unit in Parakai in which the people who were planning their little escapade on the Waitemata Harbour were staying. It is amazing what a long arm some of these involvements have. Mr Galbraith has often been confused in Auckland legal circles with Alan Galbraith QC a very highly respected lawyer in New Zealand. It takes a moment or two to differentiate between the two but I am sure they are equally highly regarded in their respective professions. 
Mr Smith is well known to us all in this House as a former Ombudsman and it was Peter Brown the Deputy Leader of New Zealand First who said some time ago: “We find him an affable man a very competent man; he is very conscientious; he is very determined to get to the bottom of a particular issue and we cannot speak highly enough of Mr Smith.” It should also be remembered that Mr Smith conducted the report into aerial spraying for the painted apple moth in Auckland and he sharply criticised the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Health for their handling of the campaign. We have two very well-qualified independent people undertaking this responsibility and New Zealand First supports the motion.
Barker Rick: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
Barker Rick: Appointments — Independent Police Conduct Authority 
[Volume:650;Page:19270] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint William Allan Reid Galbraith and Melwyn Purefoy Smith CNZM as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority each for a term of 3 years. 
 Membership of the authority is established by section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988. The authority consists of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. 
The appointments of Mr Galbraith and Mr Smith mark the completion of another recommendation of the 2007  
Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. 
 Mr Galbraith is currently the investigations manager of the Independent Police Conduct Authority and prior to this he was a member of the New Zealand Police for 37 years. Mr Smith has held various senior State sector position including that of Secretary for Justice and he was an Ombudsman from 2001 to 2005. In late 2007 Mr Smith completed a further 6-month term as an Ombudsman during which he delivered his report on his investigations into the criminal justice sector. Messrs Galbraith and Smith bring with them a wide range of skills and a wealth of experience in the public and justice sectors. With their appointments the public can have every confidence that the authority is well placed to continue with its implementation of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry.
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19270] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Following discussion between the whips I seek leave that if at 1 p.m. the House is still debating the adjournment motion the debate continue past 1 p.m. until the question is put. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none it is agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19270] 
Business of the House 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Following discussion between the whips I seek leave that if at 1 p.m. the House is still debating the adjournment motion the debate continue past 1 p.m. until the question is put. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none it is agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19265] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I must confess that I was waiting for the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard to answer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m waiting to hear a substantive thing to comment on. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The previous speaker Kate Wilkinson did raise substantive questions and therefore I will ask the Minister to comment—the questions were quite legitimate. Those questions related to why the working party report was not properly implemented and why we are now dealing with quite a narrow approach relating only to shift work. By making those sorts of narrow technical amendments—and no one is in dispute about them—we certainly fix a particular problem. No one is doubting that. This particular problem relating to shift work has been fixed. Everyone has agreed on that and that comes directly from the Supreme Court decision which is as the Minister noted earlier only about a year old. 
However that is not really the question my colleague asked. She asked about the other issues. What mechanisms does the Government have in place to fix the other issues that will arise or is the pattern going to be that we will have these little amendment bills to fix up each individual problem as it arises? There has been a consistent call as the Minister knows to have a more comprehensive review of the Holidays Act so that the range of problems that have been identified on a number of occasions—I have been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the past—will be fixed. Obviously in the nature of that discussion there would be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between employer and employee. We understand that and obviously we would not want to return to ordinary daily pay as was proposed by some people. That would be far too restrictive but conversely— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s what Kate Wilkinson has been promoting. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —National does not propose that approach—we say that relevant daily pay has its own set of problems. 
One would think this would be an important opportunity to establish a working party to resolve those kinds of issues and others so that we get a more comprehensive approach to the problem rather than this particular approach. The Minister owes it to the Committee to answer the questions raised by Kate Wilkinson. I do not think I need to take up any more time on that point but I do ask the Minister to comment.
Barnett Tim: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19264] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for this bill to be taken as one question in its Committee stage.
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19265] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.