edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Power Simon: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17149] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The House will be the poorer for the departure of the Hon Steve Maharey and his ability to put the case for Palmerston North on local bills and other legislation. No matter who wins the Palmerston North seat at the upcoming election the city will be losing an advocate who no matter how technical the issue has delivered passionate speeches on matters such as the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. 
To be frank there is not a lot to add; Mr Maharey has done a pretty good job of canvassing all the issues. But being a curious sort of character I phoned the gentleman who has been involved with the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to make sure he was happy with the legislation being promoted by the council—he was. As Steve Maharey mentioned Palmerston North’s loss will be Feilding’s gain as the A and P show moves to Manfeild Park which is a large expansive facility in the Feilding township. Manfeild Park also hosts the Central Districts Field Days and has had a massive revamp in recent years. Equestrian facilities and agribusinesses are now located on the property and it is going ahead with some vigour. 
As Mr Maharey said the bill provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the showgrounds. I used to frequent the Palmerston North Showgrounds for a waffle and candy floss and I not only played rugby there but also in later years after a severe knee injury on the mountain in 1991 refereed a fair bit of rugby there. So I know it not only from the air but also from ground level. I have a unique perspective to share—having had my face in the grass as well as having refereed under-21 rugby—on this particular park. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What did that do Simon? 
SIMON POWER 
: I tell Minister Dyson that it showed me I was incredibly unfit. It is very very difficult to keep up with under-21-year-olds who are playing very fast-paced rugby and to try to make it look as though one’s rulings and decisions are legitimate. For example one can get into all sorts of bother trying to judge a forward pass when one is 30 metres behind the play. But that is just the nature of the game. I do not have a lot to add; Steve Maharey has done a terrific job of covering it all. 
National will support this bill’s passage through the House. Members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have been advised that the bill is coming. I presume because the member did not seek a truncated select committee period that we will have 6 months for the hearing of submissions. I am sure it will not take as long as that but no doubt there will be one or two submissions I imagine from the Palmerston North City Council. National stands ready to see this bill progressed.
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17141] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Mr Dail Jones from New Zealand First quite correctly raised the question as to what the implications are for ratepayers in establishing the Bishop Suter Art Gallery as a council-controlled organisation. The first point I wish to make in response to that fair question is that there will be no increased obligation on the council to financially support the art gallery from what there was previously under the old trust board. But there is an important change which is that with the council providing the bulk of funding for the trust there will now be greater accountability because the council will be appointing the trustees. The important issue for ratepayers is not just that rates are kept under control but that there is accountability for the expenditure of those rates. Under the previous structure if the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board had been reckless with its finances—and that did not happen but potentially it could have happened—there would have been no means by which the Nelson City Council could make a correction on behalf of ratepayers. In my view the bill supports the council by providing direct accountability of the trust board back to the democratically elected council.
Jones Dail: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17140] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. I made a number of comments in support of the gallery in the first reading debate and I will be reasonably brief compared with some of the other speakers. I understand that the gallery is now into its 110th year and that it was the visionary concept of Bishop Suter. 
There is really very little that I can add to all the wonderful comments that preceding members have made. However I want to exercise one note of caution. New Zealand First is very concerned about the pressures faced by elderly people when it comes to the payment of rates. I see that the vesting of the assets and liabilities of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board in the Bishop Suter Trust which is a Nelson City Council - controlled organisation and a charitable trust will give permanent protection to the collection of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery and suchlike. 
I want to find out for sure from the local member and I am sure that Dr Smith can give me an answer about the effect that running this gallery has on ratepayers in the Nelson area. A correspondent has expressed concern to me that rates in Nelson have jumped by around 18 percent. This particular correspondent said that in 2002-03 his rates were $1656 excluding the cost of water. His rates are now $2423 which does seem a little bit high in the space of a short time. 
One of the areas where he raises concern is with regard to increased expenditure on the arts. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not take too long so if the member resumes his seat he will be able to answer my question shortly. I raise the point generally that New Zealand First is concerned as I am sure all other members are that when we have new art galleries new sports stadiums and suchlike around the country which we require the councils to support the burden can fall unfairly on elderly people on a fixed income. I just make that point and very shortly the member may answer it. 
I repeat that New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the Bishop Suter Art Gallery. As I mentioned in my first reading speech I have been to Nelson I have spent money on art in Nelson which is hanging on the wall at home and I look forward to being able to do so in the future.
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17141] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to briefly answer Mr Dail Jones’ question in respect of the implication of the bill on rates. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17121] 
1.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: Will she request people to make submissions on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2); if not why not? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The committee will be hearing evidence at its meeting tomorrow. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the chairperson recall that 93 persons gave evidence on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and has she asked all 93 persons to give evidence to the select committee and will she give them an opportunity to be heard rather than agreeing to have the bill reported back to the House on 10 July thereby giving hardly anyone a chance to be heard on this very important legislation? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As the member knows or should know that is confidential to the committee. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I disagree; that is not confidential to the committee. The member herself has just indicated that submissions will be heard. I am just asking her a question which you have permitted. I was asking whether those people would be allowed to give submissions and whether all 93 will be allowed to give submissions or whether we have a situation where the Labour Government wants to drum this bill through the House for the benefit of the trade union movement which is really behind this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member will be on the committee tomorrow and the matter will be discussed then. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact a decision has been made by the committee on this matter then the chair is right: it is a matter that is confidential to the committee. 
Dail Jones 
: In that case has a decision been made on this matter by the committee? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has had his supplementary question but maybe for the interest of the House the chair of the committee can address that question. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As I understand it the committee business is confidential to the committee. The member will be at the committee tomorrow. If he wishes to he can read his papers and be quite clear on things. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that the member is trifling with you. You have just indicated that I can ask whether the committee has made a decision. All the chairperson has to say is “Yes” or “No”. Otherwise she is trifling with you Madam Speaker and I would ask you to deal with the member accordingly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is a matter of procedure as I understand it. But I will consider the question and give the member a ruling tomorrow because these are difficult issues. The questions that members can raise are quite narrow and certainly the calling for submissions is a matter for the chair of the committee. Everything else though as I understand it is in fact a matter for the committee that it comes before. So I will take that matter under consideration.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17120] 
12.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on the success of primary health organisations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a report showing that under Labour Kiwis are benefiting from cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper prescriptions. July marks the sixth anniversary of primary health organisations in New Zealand and over 4 million New Zealanders are benefiting. Nationwide the average cost of seeing a general practitioner has dropped to just $26 and a million Kiwis pay no more than $15.50. This year’s Budget extended $3 prescriptions to hospitals which means that even more people will benefit. 
Lesley Soper 
: What evidence does the Minister have that the creation of primary health organisations is leading to better coordination at a local level? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In many parts of the country primary health organisations are leading to greater cooperation and more co-location of services—for example the Horowhenua Health Centre which I visited yesterday with my colleague Darren Hughes and whose first birthday is today. That community is benefiting from having general practitioners radiology elderly care and day surgery all co-located in the same place. That would go out the window if a National Government ever got the chance to reintroduce its disastrous free-market model in the health system. Alternatively National could just admit defeat and embrace our policy as Tony Ryall did in Rotorua recently when he said National would promote one-stop family health centres which is just what we are doing.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17110] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 That is a total lie from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are not getting anywhere with this. Could we please continue with question time—[ 
Interruption 
] I could ask many people to leave the Chamber at this stage for making points of order that are not points of order. We would certainly get through question time more quickly if that course were followed. So members—all members—are on their last warning.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17110] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can understand your frustration about points of order being raised that are not points of order but I must say that I think almost the whole House would regard it as somewhat unfair if that member were ejected when it is the habit of this House to tolerate an endless stream of non - points of order from Winston Peters. I am just asking that as you consider the next point of order Rodney Hide may make you take into account the way Mr Peters has been indulged. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will take into account all members who are in the habit of raising points of order that are not points of order. I will operate fairly on that basis.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17110] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When you gave your ruling to Rodney Hide he sat down and said: “One rule for some another rule for others.” 
Anne Tolley 
: He did not. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what he distinctly said. We heard him. Now he can tell you the truth or he can behave as he always does.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17110] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press release I issued on 18 June 2003 which is the press release that the Prime Minister referred to. I assure her that neither I nor my family trust was an owner of shares in Tranz Rail at that time and she has misled the House. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17110] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In light of that maybe the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to issue an apology. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. One more intervention that is not a point of order and that member will be asked to leave the Chamber because he is creating disorder.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. May I take the opportunity to point out an opportunity for you because although this most certainly is question time it is not uncommon that debating matters are introduced during question time. The point that I would also make to you is that anything that is put into the record by way of a question for oral answer from this side has to be verified at the time it is lodged in the morning and then when the supplementary questions come you are very very cautious and contain the House to speaking about matters that relate only to the question. Now where there has been clear misrepresentation made in an answer it would take only a ruling from you to apply Standing Order 106 to the question time situation and that would not be bad for order in the House.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 106 is about misrepresentation taking place in the debate. As you are trying to point out to the House we are meant to be having question time right now and that does not apply in this situation that the member is referring to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 For the benefit of the Hon Darren Hughes I know. But I am saying that the Speaker has the role of interpreting the Standing Orders. If the Speaker rules that this Standing Order 106 can apply to question time it can. So it is an appeal to the Speaker to do that in the name of fairness otherwise the lies perpetrated by the Prime Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would all members please be seated. Now what in effect Mr Brownlee is asking is for the Speaker to usurp the decision of the House. This is not a Speaker who is going to do that. The House has spoken it is your House the Standing Orders are yours I am merely here to apply them. If Speakers start working independently on that then goodness knows where it will all lead. So we have interpreted that and as I said the—[ 
Interruption 
] If that member wishes to remain in the Chamber he will desist until I am seated and have finished speaking. That goes for all members please. Now that Standing Order does relate to debate and it is a serious issue and I can understand why Mr Brownlee raised it. However today there is an opportunity for a general debate and I am sure these matters can be appropriately and fully aired then.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Because we need to make some progress on this the reality is that my colleague Ron Mark sought leave the other day to make a personal statement— 
Ron Mark 
: A while back. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —a while back rather—and the National Party denied him leave. It was told then the consequences of doing that sort of thing. National members never sought a reason why he wanted to speak; they just did it. We are not like them but we are prepared to say: “You come and talk to us and we’re prepared to go along with it.” But they were told that that is what happens in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all very interesting Mr Peters but it is not part of question time and it is not a point of order. There is a general debate coming up and you can talk about it there at your leisure.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You of course will be more familiar with the Standing Orders than the rest of us—and I am sort of scratching around trying to find my copy—but there is a provision although I cannot find it at the moment that if a member has been discredited in some way then the member need not seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation because the personal explanation process is about someone explaining something about what he or she has done. But if there is a misrepresentation or other—and I know that you will be familiar with it—my understanding is that a member has a right to respond to the allegations inappropriately levelled at him or her by another member.
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17109] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 This is by no means a precedent. It has certainly happened in the past in the House and it has happened to me when members of the National Party refused exactly what they are now objecting to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We do not want reminisces of personal experiences about being denied leave but I thank the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Misrepresentation as Mr Brownlee raised arises in debate. This is question time though it is turning into more like a debate. Could we please return to question time.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17108] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just heard the leader of New Zealand First explain by way of opening his question the refusal—which is pretty extreme; to have a series of allegations made against the Leader of the Opposition who then came down here to make a personal explanation and for him to be refused to be allowed to do that by New Zealand First member Ron Mark. The leader of New Zealand First—who happens also to be in charge of the country’s diplomacy—has just stood up and said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand; I am sorry. Please be seated. That member knows that every member is entitled to object when leave is sought. Leave was sought. There was an objection made. That is the end of the matter. Anything else is a general debate which is coming up. All members will have an opportunity to debate the matter there.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17108] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was not my point of order. My point of order is that Mr Peters said the objection was somehow tit for tat so what you are having is actual blackmail being used across the House— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Rubbish! Sit him down Madam Speaker. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well they can interrupt on the point of order as much as they like but that is exactly what it is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point but emotive language is not a question of blackmail. It might have been an inappropriate comment but members are free to deny leave—every single member. What flows from that is another matter but members have that right. It was exercised. That right is therefore not challenged in that context.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17108] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to statements raised by the Prime Minister in question No. 1. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I call question No. 6 the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
]
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17108] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well we did tell National. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes tit for tat now. My question is to the Minister of Finance—
King Annette: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
King Annette: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16962] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 and that it report back to the House on or before 10 July 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16962] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a first time.
Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16957] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 National will support the first reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2). The Minister has outlined the reasons that the bill needs to move with such haste. It is bearing down on the commencement date for many of the operative provisions of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act which comes into force on 1 August. I am aware that there will need to be a thorough discussion during the select committee process with representations being made by the Law Society which will want to ensure that any changes to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act that are proposed by this amendment bill are not in any way designed to undermine the original intent and purpose of that governing parent legislation. 
The Law Society and other stakeholder submitters will be given as I understand it the opportunity to make submissions to ensure that unions business associations and the like that provide and have always provided in-house legal advice to their members are not disadvantaged. We do not want in any way to see that happen. Nor do we want to inadvertently create a situation where legal advice other than in those specific situations is able to be given outside of the standard structures available for the practice of law. 
The Minister has asked the House for a very short time frame for the bill at the Justice and Electoral Committee. National will support that time frame. We will head to that committee with an open mind about submissions that need to be made to ensure that the provisions of the amendment bill are not overcooked which is something that I know my colleague Dr Richard Worth will want to make a few short remarks about in this debate. Having said that I note that the Minister approached the National Party on this issue on 10 June. In good faith she sent us a copy of the amendment bill and a covering letter asking whether we would support the legislation. We will do that and I personally look forward to sitting on the committee when I can to deal with this bill. Members of the National Party will do their best to ensure that all parties including practising lawyers in traditional legal frameworks are protected as well as those associations that have historically given legal advice to their members in the way that a business association or union has.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 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. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 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. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of the Hon Maryan Street to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended 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. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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. 
Amendment agreed to.
Simich Clem: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16953] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate three questions and three votes.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule 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. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 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. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16948] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Paul Hutchison I will say that we have now had one and a half speeches off Part 2. I wonder whether we could now go back on to Part 2.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16945] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16945] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16945] 
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. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of the Hon Maryan Street to Part 1 be agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16945] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16944] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the commentary on the bill which shows that New Zealand First has— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to table the commentary on the bill. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.
Duynhoven Harry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16942] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have actually been listening to the debate quite hard. I will take Peter Brown. If I take any others after Peter Brown I would really have to have a new argument. The argument has been repeated now. I have been given new examples but it is the same basic argument.
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16939] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16926] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on behalf of United Future to support the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and to congratulate everybody who celebrates here today. I arrived at work very early this morning and already literally hundreds of iwi members had gathered at Parliament. It made me realise how important today’s event is. One could take a very bland look at the agreement and merely see the valuable land and its potential the accumulated and ongoing rentals that will now be the property of the collective iwi and the other commercial areas of redress. I just reflect on the one thing that has stood out for me today which is the very fine leadership shown by both the iwi collective and the Crown in making today happen. I congratulate everybody involved; they are assured of United Future’s ongoing support for this legislation.
Cullen Michael: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16921] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise an unusual point. I want to apologise to the House for leaving during this debate because we have the Raukawa signing of terms of negotiation upstairs. So I need to absent myself. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you.
Mark Ron: General Debate 
Mark Ron: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:16908] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation. Just to make it absolutely clear I voted against the legislation that Mr Mapp voted for which he spoke of. Secondly I did so at the time because I was part of a party that called for a referendum. I believed that we needed a referendum then and I still believe that we need a referendum today. I take exception to people who would misrepresent the truth about New Zealand First’s position on that issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16893] 
9.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Has he received any reports on the progress being made to increase flexibility and reduce costs in the building and construction sector? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes the department has provided me with a number of reports on the progress being made to increase flexibility and reduce costs in the sector. As a consequence of that changes to the Building Act will be introduced that I am confident will increase flexibility and reduce costs. I shall outline them briefly for the edification of other members in the House: project information memoranda will be voluntary in the future the functions of the Department of Building and Housing will be extended so that national multiple-use approvals can be issued for houses that are to be replicated on a substantive scale across regions there will be an improvement to the process for managing variations to consented work and a host of other things which I shall make available to the public very soon are also on the way. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can this visionary Minister outline the projected savings from these truly outstanding initiatives? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall give a modest reply! It has been identified that the amount of building work that will no longer require a building consent represents a reduction of about 10 percent. I have been advised by very senior building inspectors around the country that the estimated savings in consent fees could very well be up to $10 million per annum resulting in substantial savings for homeowners and freeing up resources and time within local government so that it can focus on areas where risk is particularly large. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister see a rich irony in his Government spending 8½ years increasing bureaucracy and costs for the building industry and for local councils but then in its last 6 months having a road to Damascus conversion in response to polling concerns; and when will we actually see either a bill to amend the disastrous Building Act 2004 or reductions in the building levy which was trebled by this Government to over $40 million a year? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The Building Act was a reaction to the failure to act during the period of time that National was in power. Secondly this is a dynamic situation. The construction and housing sector goes through changes and these amendments and alterations are being implemented to reflect the changing dynamic nature of the environment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table documents from the Wellington City Council that show that this week it has announced a threefold increase in its fees for minor earthworks. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have asked us to write to you on occasions when answers to written questions are somewhat overdue. A substantial number of answers to written questions are currently overdue. There have been discussions between various offices. In my own case some 20 questions to the Minister of Energy’s office have been outstanding for 2 weeks. I ask you Madam Speaker in this much more public way to ensure that the Government answers those questions in a timely fashion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If he just notifies me of the specific questions I will ensure that that happens.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have asked us to write to you on occasions when answers to written questions are somewhat overdue. A substantial number of answers to written questions are currently overdue. There have been discussions between various offices. In my own case some 20 questions to the Minister of Energy’s office have been outstanding for 2 weeks. I ask you Madam Speaker in this much more public way to ensure that the Government answers those questions in a timely fashion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If he just notifies me of the specific questions I will ensure that that happens.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for the time by which the Maori Affairs Committee must report Vote Maori Affairs to be extended from Tuesday 22 July 2008 to Thursday 24 July 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Boyd Matene 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Boyd Matene 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 23 June 2008 of senior security officer Boyd Matene a member of the Parliamentary Service for almost 12 years. On behalf of this House I desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late staff member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Boyd Matene 
Obituaries — Boyd Matene 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
Wednesday 25 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Boyd Matene 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 23 June 2008 of senior security officer Boyd Matene a member of the Parliamentary Service for almost 12 years. On behalf of this House I desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late staff member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:648;Page:16883] 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for the time by which the Maori Affairs Committee must report Vote Maori Affairs to be extended from Tuesday 22 July 2008 to Thursday 24 July 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16750] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 In the absence of someone else taking a call I will jump the queue a little bit but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker will cut me off about now. 
Debate interrupted.
Brown Peter: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16749] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Before I speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill I want to clarify what Nick Smith told this House. He told us that the figures he had obtained from the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali made New Zealand the 38th worst country. In my language the worst is the worst the second worst is not quite as bad and the 38th worst is close to the top if it is out of 42 countries. But I do not think that is what he meant. I think he was saying we were the 38th from the bottom— 
Eric Roy 
: From the top. 
PETER BROWN 
: From the top close to the bottom—fourth from the bottom. Would members agree with that? That is not 38th worst is it? 
Eric Roy 
: It can be. 
PETER BROWN 
: It might be down in Southland I say to Mr Roy but it certainly is not normally. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re in the southern hemisphere Pete. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh it is the southern hemisphere? There you are—that explains it. No I have to say that the honourable member Nick Smith is quite confused. He is going to get married he is engaged to a lovely lady and he has got all excited about it. Let us put it down to that. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill and I want to read from the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. It says under the heading “Submissions opposed to the bill”: “All submissions opposing the bill were substantive and came from business and industry groups local government electricity generators professionals and academics environment and community groups and one from a transmission network provider. Most submitters considered climate change to be a serious issue but expressed opposition to the bill because it made climate change a local government responsibility when submitters favoured a national response.” That is our position entirely. I think the member who just resumed her seat indicated that although local government could have control over certain aspects of certain emissions it cannot have control over the number of cattle on a farm ships coming into a port and what have you and that creates a dual standard. 
I understand where the member who is promoting the bill is coming from. I understand the frustration that would result from the bill sitting there for 2 years; I think that is enough to frustrate anybody. But New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We believe that the emissions trading scheme legislation that has just emerged from the select committee and is under discussion by the Government and other parties is the way to go when it comes to climate change emissions carbon footprints and all those sorts of things. We want one piece of clear legislation that everybody understands and works in with—that must be the aim of the game surely. This piecemeal approach will not work and is not acceptable to New Zealand First. We will be opposing this bill.
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16747] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The quote was in terms of an increase in emissions. New Zealand’s were ranked at 38th out of 42 which meant that we are the 38th worst in terms of the growth in emissions in the term of this Government. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Brown Peter: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16747] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member but I just want him to clarify something he said because I think he made a mistake. In the Bali figures he quoted he actually described New Zealand as being the 38th worst country. That makes it the fourth-best out of 42 countries. I think he meant 38th country from the top did he not rather than 38th from the bottom?