edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3067] 
10.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct public duty and personal interests” in part 2 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I believe so. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When he told the  
Indian Express 
 in an exclusive interview: “We will be making it easy to get visitor visa as the rules will be relaxed” had he spoken to his colleague the Minister of Immigration beforehand or did he do so on his return? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: All the comments that I made on immigration issues in India reflected National Party policy as set out in the manifesto. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Minister told the  
Indian Express 
: “We have asked the government to start a direct flight between India and Auckland and also an India Trade Centre in Auckland.” had he received the Government’s response at the time of the interview in late February; if not has he received the Government’s response to each of those requests since? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: There are two questions there. As to the first the position of the India Trade Group has been obvious for a number of years and—Mr Goff will know this—we are very keen to see direct trade links established between India and New Zealand. That is a straightforward statement of fact. I had no further discussion with the Minister of Transport when I returned to New Zealand. As to the second question about the India Trade Centre that is something I know nothing about and it has never been India Trade Group policy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he recollect telling the same newspaper about 10 weeks ago: “My personal commitment to Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal is that New Zealand will be committed to improve efficiency and productivity of the farmers in the state” and was he speaking then as a Minister of the Crown as reported or was he speaking as a private individual? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: That was a private trip on which I was chairman of the India Trade Group and all times I spoke in that capacity. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table answers to 25 questions to the Minister of Immigration the Minister of Agriculture the Minister of Trade the Minister for Tertiary Education and the Minister of Transport which show in their collective that on the honourable Minister’s return he approached none of them about any of the issues he grandstanded on— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a collection of answers. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Dean Jacqui: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3113] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 There can be no doubt that gambling damages both individuals and homes and that to an extent it damages and affects whole communities. I do not think that fact is much disputed around this House so it is with pleasure that I speak for a few more minutes on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). 
This bill makes good progress in bringing into effect what Parliament has desired to introduce in terms of the mitigation of problem gambling. As I have just a few minutes left to speak I refer to the select committee consideration of this bill. It seems to me that the Government Administration Committee of the previous Parliament had a really thorough look at the issue of problem gambling under the chairmanship of Shane Ardern and a number of other excellent members. It is notable that of the 168 submissions received on this bill while 32 of them expressed general support for the bill the rest of the submissions were not necessarily against the spirit of the bill; they were outside its scope perhaps or they advocated for measures that were beyond the intention of the bill. It is worthwhile to reflect on the intention of Parliament—both the previous Parliament and now this Parliament—to acknowledge and recognise that we still have some way to go in New Zealand to address the issues of problem gambling. 
The amendments to the Gambling Act are intended to tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gambling in New Zealand. Importantly organisations or people who receive grants from gambling societies need to be accountable for how that money is spent. I think that is one of the critical amendments that has been brought in by this bill. I read with horror about money that is raised from gaming machines in South Auckland and is then spent in North Otago on stakes for horse racing. I know that that issue has attracted the attention of a number of people. 
Importantly this bill allows for the regulation of the collection of important information around the gaming industry. For example if somebody on a gaming premises is viewed as having a problem with gambling that person must not be approached only once. That person must be approached a number of times making the intervention more effective. It is not good enough for a person with a gambling problem to be approached only once and for the people who made the approach to then wash their hands and say that they have done their bit. With those few words I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Nash Stuart: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3112] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
:  
I have heard a lot of rubbish about the Securities Disclosure and Finance Advisers Amendment Bill. David Bennett’s speech was— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Stock standard. 
STUART NASH 
: Well it was actually rubbish—absolute rubbish. 
Hon Member 
: It was outstanding. 
STUART NASH 
: Yeah sure! 
There is no doubt about the fact that in the 1980s the New Zealand Stock Exchange was made up of a bunch of cowboys operating in an unregulated environment and we were viewed in a very very poor light overseas. That was tidied up but we must remember how it was. David Bennett talked about glossy pictures and prospectuses. The reason why a lot of those companies offered dodgy prospectuses was that they did not undertake to comply with securities regulations. Our securities regulations were actually very very good. But this bill allows some companies if they comply with a certain set of criteria under securities regulations to issue prospectuses that do not require the level of detail that was required before. That is all I have to say on that. 
I want to take a moment to make a statement about what happened in Napier. As a Napier-based member of Parliament I would like to say that I endorse everything that every political leader and Mr Tremain have said about Senior Constable Len Snee. He was a police officer in Napier for 33 years. He was a community constable and a very highly regarded man as a member of Napier’s community as well as a policeman. Our thoughts go out to his family to his children and to all the police in Napier who do an absolutely fine job. I would also like to say that the civil defence organisation in Napier was absolutely first-class. 
Another thing I would say is that Napier has been in the press recently for the wrong reasons. Napier is a fantastic place; it has wonderful citizens. Its wine is the best in the country. It has the highest sunshine hours of any place in the country. It has art deco. Napier is about the art deco festival in February when people dress in 1930s livery have fun and enjoy the sunshine each other’s company and opportunities for tourism. Napier is not about the violence that we have seen in the paper and on the television screens. Once again I pass on my condolences to Len Snee’s family. It is a dreadful circumstance but it is not what Napier is about. Thank you very much.
Vote: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3092] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Power Simon: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3092] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member but if the member just indicates what his vote is surely we should just be able to record it without having to go through the whole process of a party vote. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am happy to— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. No we cannot do it that way; we must have a party vote. Leave is sought for the Green Party to have its vote recorded. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Locke Keith: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3092] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I forgot that the Green Party wanted to vote against that bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I have already announced the result. If you wish to have your vote counted then you will have to seek leave. I have already announced the result. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am sorry; I forgot to call for a party vote. I seek leave for a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought by the Green Party for the vote to be retaken. Is there any objection to that course of action?
Tisch Lindsay: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3092] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.
Hide Rodney: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3092] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I move that the Regulatory Improvement Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3082] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to record my thanks to the House for its indulgence in respect of the slight straying off the topic by Mr Tremain. I think it was a generous move by the House and it should be recognised.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3082] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the bill and report finally to the House on or before 9 June 2009. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3072] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a first time 
. At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that this bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee with an instruction that the bill be finally reported back to the House by 15 June 2009. For reasons I will explain in my speech it is essential that the bill is passed before 1 July 2009.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Waterview Connection—Funding Announcement 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Waterview Connection—Funding Announcement 
[Volume:654;Page:3072] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement on funding options for the Waterview Connection. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate. The New Zealand Transport Agency board is meeting today to consider alternative options and is scheduled to announce its decision tomorrow. The announcement today is part of a decision-making process. No decision of the preferred option for the Waterview Connection has yet been made. 
For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence an event on which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred. The purpose of the debate is to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of an urgent debate procedure today. The application is therefore declined.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3071] 
1. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee 
: Do the terms of reference of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee include a review of the emissions trading scheme legislation? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee): 
 The committee’s terms of reference which were set by the House do not expressly refer to reviewing the legislation. However they are broad enough to allow the committee to recommend changes to the scheme that might require amending the legislation. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Were submitters informed that their submissions did not need to stay within the written terms of reference; if not were not those submitters misled by the ACT Party’s terms of reference about what was acceptable? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Submitters were informed that they needed to submit in accordance with the terms of reference of the select committee. Whether they felt misled is for them to determine. I draw the member’s attention to the fact that one of the terms of reference was to “examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change”. Within that term of reference there would have been scope to make comments about the emissions trading scheme.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3066] 
8.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the Government doing to encourage exploration for oil and gas in New Zealand waters? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Last Friday I announced that over the next 3 years the Crown will spend $20 million acquiring and processing seismic information about New Zealand’s offshore subsurface geography. Petroleum exploration and investment companies will be able to use that data to assess the oil and gas potential of those prospective basins. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the benefits of seismic data acquisition by the Government? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Good seismic information is the first step towards understanding the hydrocarbon potential of any particular area. The previous surveys have resulted in $1.4 billion of expenditure by exploration companies. So far for every $1 invested by the Government explorers have invested a further $50 so it was very surprising that the previous Government chose to cancel what has been a very successful economic development project. 
Jonathan Young 
: What benefits do oil and gas developments bring to New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Indigenous oil developments like the Tui and Maari fields provide economic benefits such as jobs for New Zealanders and also help our balance of payments. For the 11-month production period ended 30 June 2008 the Tui joint venture paid the Crown $210 million in royalties and at least a further $250 million in related corporate taxes. This year will be no different. These are significant benefits. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Government have any plans to return the rights to oil and gas lying beneath the land of private landowners from whom that right was confiscated by a Labour Government in 1937 which was confirmed in the Crown Minerals Act 1991; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No this is a settled matter of law.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3064] 
6.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she agree with Chester Borrows MP that “the horse has bolted” and that it is too late to find all of the unregistered weapons in New Zealand; if so what action can she take as police Minister to address the critical issues around the registration of gun owners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 New Zealand does not have a universal registration system for firearms. The Arms Act 1983 moved to a licensing regime to ensure as far as possible that only fit and proper people can legally have access to firearms. Reasons for change at the time were that the previous firearms registration scheme was inaccurate had low compliance did not assist crime prevention and was costly. There are however very serious issues around unlicensed gun owners who are criminals. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand is probably the only country in the world to allow online sales of guns and that as result we have one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita in the world? Can she please tell the House what action is planned to respond to concerns that little is being done to revise one of the weakest weapons monitoring systems in the world? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am advised that other countries—including the UK Australia and the US—have online sales of guns. The online sale of guns is one of the issues I will be asking police to consider. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the 1997 report by Sir Thomas Thorp which advocates a system of licensing of guns. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Member 
: It has already been tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked whether there is any objection. There appears to be no objection although it has been suggested that it has already been tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3062] 
4.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made regarding building developments at Middlemore Hospital? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced approval of a $208 million upgrade of Middlemore Hospital. This includes a $100 million contribution from central government. The main parts of this approval include completion of the Edmund Hillary block including additional in-patient beds; the establishment of a clinical services block including three new theatres; the replacement of the ageing theatres; a 48-bed assessment planning unit; and an 18-bed high dependency unit. This is the single biggest commitment to a hospital redevelopment since 2004. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: When will the people of the Counties Manukau District Health Board area see the benefits of this necessary and significant investment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member is right; this is a very necessary development because the Counties Manukau District Health Board area is predicted to— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is this an unfunded commitment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No it is not an unfunded commitment but I have inherited $600 million of unfunded capital claims from the Government of that party opposite. This is a very necessary development because the Counties Manukau District Health Board is predicted to have the highest growth in health demand in the country in the next 20 years. The commissioning of the new wards in the block is expected to occur in the middle of next year and further construction over that next period will I am advised create up to a thousand jobs in South Auckland. Lastly I am advised that this approval finally means the demolition of Middlemore Hospital’s last remaining World War II buildings. This Government is bringing the health service into the 21st century. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was the Minister told that the three-phase redevelopment of Middlemore Hospital including the beginning of the Edmund Hillary block was already under way—and had been for several years—before he announced the redevelopment yesterday as National Party policy and will he now commit funding to all of phase three of the project; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I missed the question. If an announcement was made that those projects were being completed and there was no money set aside for them then that is another unfunded commitment made by the Government of that party opposite together with the $600 million worth of capital requests that it provided no money to cover.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3058] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You possibly quite properly intervened on the Leader of the Opposition but it was a two-way conversation with the Prime Minister. You looked only at this side of the House when you made those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise if that is the impression that I created. [ 
Interruption 
] There will not be comment on this. I was indicating both sides of the House with my hands. Forgive me; both sides were equally guilty. I do apologise if I gave the honourable Leader of the Opposition the impression that I was blaming only him—I was not. It was not only him at fault at all. I accept that point and I apologise for it.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3058] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 How will Budget 2009 address large spending commitments made in Budget 2008? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I invite him to repeat his question. I could not hear. I invite members please not to interject continuously across the House. I have called Chris Tremain.
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
[Volume:654;Page:3055] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Across New Zealand nearly every day of the year families farewell each other in the morning as they go off to work to college or to school to go about their normal daily lives and they look forward to the time when they come home at the end of the day. So it was I suspect in the Snee household last Thursday morning. No one could have imagined that within a few short hours Senior Constable Snee and his two colleagues would have confronted the awesome reality that they did and that Constable Snee would lie dead. That is hard enough for any family to have to come to grips with—the sudden traumatic loss of a father a husband and a loved one. The circumstances make it so much worse in this case. 
We can stand here in this House and genuinely express our sympathy and our horror at what has happened but I doubt that any of us would be bold enough to say that in so doing we have even a modicum of understanding of the feeling that the family who are suffering today as a consequence of these actions have. I think it is right and proper to pay tribute to an outstanding police officer. I think it is right and proper to call to mind the expectations we as a community place upon the police and how for granted we take the fact that they will always be there to undertake those unpleasant tasks. 
I agree with other speakers: this is not the time to draw political lessons. There is much work to be done in understanding what happened on this occasion and in learning over time the lessons so that these events cannot be repeated. But for now our response as a community has to be to come around the affected families to support them in their moments of deep despair and distraught grief to encourage them to try to face the future with some confidence to give them the assurance that we recognise the contribution of their loved ones and to honour Constable Snee Constable Miller and Constable Diver by these words in the House this afternoon. This has been a horrific week for New Zealand. I think New Zealand has reacted with some dignity and calm and now we need to show that same dignity calm and space as we support the affected families who are recovering from this tragedy. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Anderton Jim: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
Anderton Jim: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
[Volume:654;Page:3054] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I too join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee. I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in hospital. I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen. 
Maybe the most sombre thing we do in this or any other Parliament is to send men and women into danger on behalf of New Zealand citizens and communities. The plaques on this Chamber’s walls reflect their sacrifice. We send them out knowing that sometimes on the darkest days they will not come back. When we send them out we send them to defend New Zealanders. They are there for us. They go out as our bravest and when they fall something of us all falls with them. Every police officer knows that when he or she goes about his or her duty even on an apparently normal day danger and unpredictability lurk. Police officers take on that danger on our behalf. We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them and we cannot begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us. 
Most of us have learnt a lot about Len Snee in the last few days. We learnt about his professionalism as a police officer. We learnt about his popularity in and his commitment to his community. I pay tribute to him personally and I hope that as his family grieve they can find some small comfort in the respect and admiration his countrymen and women are universally expressing. I hope New Zealanders will show their respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while the wounds are still so raw. It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy but it is wrong. I congratulate the Prime Minister and say that I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming New Zealand’s police in their day-to-day operations. That response in my view was the right response. 
There will be lessons to be learnt from this tragedy of course and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. But the time for making political judgments is not now. I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns nor for political mileage about drugs crime policing mental health or any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause. This is simply a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us to share the grief of Len Snee’s family and friends and to express our strength as a New Zealand community that comes together in a way that makes our bond stronger whenever we are confronted with a tragedy like this.
Hide Rodney: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
Hide Rodney: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
[Volume:654;Page:3052] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I express our sympathy at the loss of Senior Constable Len Snee killed in the line of duty. Our thoughts go out to his family his colleagues and the community in which he played such a supportive role. The thoughts of the ACT Party and of course this Parliament are also with the other injured policemen Senior Constable Bruce Miller and Senior Constable Grant Diver and the injured neighbour Leonard Holmwood. We are thinking of them and their families. 
This tragedy highlights the extreme risk our police face every day. We can all be thankful for the professionalism and courage of our policemen and policewomen. That was there for all of us to see as our brave police continued their task of protecting the citizens of Napier long after one of their own had fallen. Every man and every woman who puts on a uniform is a hero. They put their lives on the line for us every day. Tragically Senior Constable Len Snee paid the ultimate price. We mourn his passing today and we salute the brave men and brave women who serve us. Thank you.
Norman Russel William: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
Norman Russel William: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
[Volume:654;Page:3052] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to add our sympathy and send our condolences to the family and friends of Senior Constable Len Snee. We would also like to send our sympathy to those who have been shot in the incident and are recovering. Losing a husband a father a brother—losing a loved one—is always really difficult. We are thinking of the family now and I think all of us can identify with and feel for them in what they are going through at the moment. We in the Greens offer our gratitude to our hard-working police for the job they do to keep New Zealand a safe place. New Zealand is generally a peaceful society—generally—and we hope we will not see further tragedies like this one in the future. We would like to send a tribute to Len Snee and to thank his family for all that they have done. We would also like to acknowledge him. On behalf of the Green Party I thank all New Zealand police for the hard work they do.
Goff Phil: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
Goff Phil: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier Armed Siege 
[Volume:654;Page:3052] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Opposition I want to join with others to express our sympathy and condolences to the family the friends and the colleagues of Senior Constable Len Snee who was killed in the course of carrying out his duties in Napier last week. To Grant Diver Bruce Miller and Lenny Holmwood and to their families and friends we likewise express our sympathy and concern and our hope that they will quickly recover from the injuries they sustained during the shootings. 
For Len’s family words cannot adequately express the loss that they have suffered. To lose a husband a father and a brother in this way is absolutely a tragedy and our thoughts are in particular with Vicki his wife and their sons Sam and Joe. Our thoughts are also with Len’s colleagues in the police force because for those who work as police officers their workmates are also their family. They work as part of a team; they often face danger together. Because of the nature of their jobs they know each other well and they rely on each other. 
Len Snee is the 29th police officer killed in the line of duty. Last year equally tragically we saw two police officers Sergeant Don Wilkinson and Sergeant Derek Wootton killed in the line of their work. Police officers work to keep our community safe and to protect the lives of people in our society. In this House we need to remember that every day police officers around the country put their safety and sometimes their lives at risk on behalf of their country. They deserve our support in carrying out that work. 
All of the facts of the shootings that occurred in Chaucer Road in Napier last week are yet to emerge. We will have a better idea of exactly what happened and what we can learn from this tragedy when a full inquiry has been held. I believe that there will be stories of considerable courage on the part of those involved and in due course we will be able to pay tribute to those people. We will also need to look for lessons about how we can hopefully reduce the risk of situations of this nature reoccurring and questions I believe will validly be asked about how people are able to unlawfully acquire and hold military-style weapons. But for now we join with Len Snee’s family in acknowledging and paying tribute to him and expressing our feelings of loss. On Police Remembrance Day on 29 September we will sadly add Len Snee’s name to the roll of honour of police officers whom we remember as having given their lives in the course of their duties.
Urgent Debates Declined — Waterview Connection—Funding Announcement 
Urgent Debates Declined — Waterview Connection—Funding Announcement 
[Volume:654;Page:3072] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Waterview Connection—Funding Announcement 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement on funding options for the Waterview Connection. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate. The New Zealand Transport Agency board is meeting today to consider alternative options and is scheduled to announce its decision tomorrow. The announcement today is part of a decision-making process. No decision of the preferred option for the Waterview Connection has yet been made. 
For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence an event on which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred. The purpose of the debate is to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of an urgent debate procedure today. The application is therefore declined.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3764] 
5.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What steps is the Government taking to deter illegal street racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Two comprehensive bills that give police and local authorities greater powers to clamp down on illegal street racers and as a last resort crush their vehicles have been introduced today. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill are designed to work in unison to address the problem of illegal street racing in New Zealand. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister received any feedback on the Government’s proposals? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. Police have welcomed the new bills which will help close the current loopholes and provide a comprehensive suite of powers for police and local authorities to tackle this issue. Police agree with the Government that when public safety is at risk appropriate law enforcement is required and reports I have seen suggest that there is political consensus that the existing law needs to be strengthened. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What are the loopholes in the current law? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Illegal street racers are currently able to commit an offence in another person’s car and avoid the full force of the law. Illegal street racers have been known to sell their car to a friend for a nominal amount in order to avoid penalties and/or confiscation. Other loopholes include illegal street racers accruing and failing to pay fines and switching cars in order to avoid being penalised. These bills will help close the loopholes in the existing law. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What guarantee can the Minister give the House that this new legislation will lead to any more boy racers losing their cars than do so currently considering that although courts can already confiscate on a first offence this happens in less than 2 percent of cases? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think that when the member reads the bills he will see that there are very strong provisions; it is very difficult to sell or race a car that has been crushed.
Brownlee Gerry: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3841] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Raising this issue is a time-wasting effort on the part of the Opposition. You have ruled appropriately about the bill’s compliance. Your ruling should stand. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am seeking advice and it will be final. As far as I am aware and as far as the advice goes the bill is in order and that is what I have already ruled. But I will seek advice to make sure that we are right by speaking to the Clerk and then the ruling will stand. 
The situation is that if the Attorney-General had felt that this bill did not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act he would have presented a paper. As that is not the case the bill is in order. We will now proceed.
Mallard Trevor: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3840] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my experience it works the other way. The Cabinet legislation committee gets an indication from the Attorney-General and there can therefore be an assurance from the Leader of the House that that indication has been given. There is clearly some doubt on this issue. As for how it could be solved I am not sure whether as has been the case in the past the Leader of the House chairs the Cabinet legislation committee but I can certainly remember Michael Cullen doing that at the time when he was Leader of the House. It was something that he both in the period that he was Attorney-General— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am seeking advice from the Clerk but I will call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Tremain Chris: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3838] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and to recommend it to the House in its first reading. Thank you.
Goodhew Jo: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3832] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the first reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It is a bill that the Social Services Committee will welcome. The Hon Maurice Williamson has outlined the purpose of the bill and I begin by saying that it is clear that both National and Labour believe that an amendment bill is necessary. On that point we have some agreement; there are also many points on which we differ. 
One of the first interesting points I will make is that significant changes in the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market have taken place. The number of people living in rental housing has increased with a corresponding decline in homeownership rates. One-third of New Zealanders are renting their homes. Of those people 81 percent rent from a private landlord or trust and 19 percent rent from a public landlord such as the Housing New Zealand Corporation or a local authority. Because 15 months is the average duration of tenancy it is important that we put in place some amendments to residential tenancies so that we can deal with and meet the needs of people who are in that position. Fifteen months is a very short average duration of tenancy. It is interesting to know that in my own electorate of Rangitata 20 percent of households are paying rent. 
Landlords have changed over time. There has been significant growth in the private rental sector as a proportion of the total rental sector including more private landlords. Demographic changes have meant there is an increase in the proportion of family households and older sole people in rental housing for longer periods of time and sometimes throughout their lifetime. 
This bill is entirely necessary. It sets out some significant changes from the original intentions that Labour had for this amendment bill. These intentions set out the differences between the two parties but we believe that we will meet the needs of tenants in a much safer and more appropriate manner. I look forward to seeing this bill in the select committee.
Bradford Sue: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3817] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on behalf of the Green Party to confirm that we support the changes to the Building Act as set out in the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) as reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. Unfortunately I was not on the select committee that dealt with the bill so I am not aware of all the detail but I am pleased that although this legislation was originally brought forward by the previous Labour Government the National Government has seen fit to proceed with it in a reasonably timely manner. 
One of the main features of the bill is that it introduces a national multiple-use approvals process. This means that where buildings of the same design are being replicated on a substantial scale they will not each have to go through an individual approval process as they do at the moment. This is a sensible amendment which should mean substantially reduced costs at a time when price is becoming even more of an issue for all involved in the construction development and purchase of housing. I know there were concerns that this multiple-use approval mechanism might mean the encouragement of cheap ugly low-standard houses or units not designed with reference or in relation to particular sites. However I understand that these approvals will still need to go to the local building consent authorities which will need to take relevant local urban design into account. I hope that requirement will provide sufficient protection as it is a fact that all sites are unique. 
As was made patently clear during the inquiry into housing affordability that took place under the previous Government and which some of us took part in the costs of housing in this country are comparatively high and are still a real issue. I believe that the few measures contained in this bill will help to bring costs down and to simplify processes which virtually every stakeholder in the building sector believes have become too lengthy and complex. 
For all these reasons the Green Party commends this bill to the House and at the same time acknowledges what George Hawkins said before that this is only a very small step in the journey we need to make in the area of housing.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:3810] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this evening on the Crown entities debate. I seek leave from the House for the House to rise early this evening for the 6 o’clock dinner break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3810] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on the performance of the 2007/08 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House. 
Report adopted.
Chauvel Charles: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3809] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the subject of the policy that was revealed today about banning people on bail from applying for a State house. It seems to be a Draconian policy. I really hope we will hear from the Minister as to why this policy has been adopted. It is just not appropriate for a social housing agency to set itself up as judge and jury on the innocence or guilt of people appearing before the courts. I would have thought that the Minister in the chair Maurice Williamson has some real sympathy with that position and will be able to tell the Committee why on earth this policy has been adopted. We all know in this country that under the law people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise but the current Minister seems to consider his agency to be above the law in adopting this policy. It is a plain fact that many people on bail are never convicted of the offences they are charged with. The delays in the court system mean that people can remain on bail for a year or more before their case is even heard. 
The Housing New Zealand Corporation as one of the previous speakers noted is a housing provider of last resort. It has 68000 properties nationally housing 200000 people. More than 30000 State housing households are on an income of between $210 and $300 per week and more than 38000 tenants pay between $51 and $100 per week. That shows just what the situation is and what this provider was set up to be. It is there to provide a home for families in need but the decision about banning people who are on bail from applying for a house could actually force families into homelessness or into a situation whereby parents are forced to separate either from each other or from their children in order to ensure that they are housed. Surely neither of these scenarios is appropriate nor acceptable. 
Report noted.