edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21709] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 On the basis of the member’s amendment about a lesser amount I have given an undertaking to accept his amendment. There is no problem about that. We are going to be absolutely straight. 
On the other issue about information that goes to the airlines I come back to the point I made earlier. If we want the situation whereby the bags of a “person of interest” are not loaded with everybody else’s bags and therefore we do not need to hold the plane up and everybody else we want the airline to be able to say: “This person is of interest.” No other information will be given to the airline. 
Brian Connell 
: How does that work? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The airline will be told only that the person is of interest to us. It will not be given any other information or background. We can tell the airline to make sure those bags are put aside. The airline will not know any of the details. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What about other activities? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The airline can have a lot of other things but that was the issue in terms of aliases. My advice is that we want to try to avoid as best we can mistaken identity. If I Rick Barker was heading off to Australia to attend the funeral of someone who was very close and someone else had a fine owing and I thought: “Well my name is actually Richard John Barker” but the system had the alias “Rick Barker” and I was told: “This is your fine.” and I was held at the airport and missed the funeral we would all feel terrible about that mistake. We have to make sure that we do this at the highest level. The officials made the point that aliases in the system make it more probable that a mistake will occur and the wrong person will be picked out. So we are trying to do this thing properly. If it is my fine I will have to pay it before I get on the plane.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20197] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 1 outlines the purpose of the bill which is essentially to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in the deed of settlement. It also gives effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement signed between Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown in respect of historical claims. In so far as it gives the outline of the bill Part 1 signals that Part 3 will provide that the settlement of the claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is final and deals with related issues. It is important for the members of the public who are listening to know that the objective of settlement legislation is always to make sure that the settlement of the historic injustice that has been suffered by any one particular tribe is regarded as being full and final for the matters that are dealt with in the legislation. 
Clauses 7 and 8 set out both in Maori and in English the acknowledgments to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in respect of their grievances. This House should never underestimate the importance of this part of any settlement legislation to the tribe in question particularly when a tribe has suffered raupatu or confiscation at the hands of the Crown for standing up for hearth and home so to speak. Those people who are of English extraction and I am one of them as well will understand clearly what that means. There is an understanding that the hearth and home are sacrosanct to the family and that is why I think those confiscations were such an unhappy time in our history. In essence the tribes were basically standing up for no more than their hearth and their home. In other words they were saying: “This is my home. I have a right to stand and protect it.” 
When the Crown acknowledges and apologises for unlawful confiscations it is an important matter for the tribe concerned. Although much is made of the treaty grievance gravy train and the money that is tied up in settlements members must believe that a public apology set in legislation is a huge thing for tribes and in this case it will be no less so for Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is basically a recognition by the Crown of the struggles of the ancestors of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It states that “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and particularly for the confiscation of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty lands and for the cumulative effect of those actions over the generations. 
I was listening to the member for ACT Stephen Franks. Maori society was built upon the ownership of land—tribal ownership. Once that was taken away there was little chance for the societal structures to remain.
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6934] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I had the privilege of speaking on the first reading of this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. At that time I made only the one point and that was with regard to clause 9 and the fact that it was so wide and allowed various rules to be made in terms of Orders in Council. I am interested to see that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did consider clause 9 and made a comment that I wish to read into the record. The report under the heading “Orders in Council making provisions to give effect to International obligations” states: “We considered amendments to clause 9 of the bill. We note that there is the potential in clause 9 for the Government in making Orders in Council to give effect to an international obligation to establish a higher threshold than the international obligations as defined in the bill. However we are advised that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6. Moreover in making Orders in Council related to export prohibitions the Government is constrained by both the requirement that the prohibition be “necessary” to give effect to the international obligation and its other international trade obligations.” 
That is the only point I wished to make. I wanted to have it written into the record so that we had the select committee’s view on the record for any future reference. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19240] 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Have average household power prices increased since the election of the Government in 1999; if so by how much? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am advised that the average retail charge per kilowatt hour has increased from 11.4c as at 15 November 1999 to 14.53c as at 15 November 2004. A significant proportion of this increase reflects increasing electricity generation costs with higher prices being paid for thermal fuels. However New Zealand still has some of the cheapest prices in the OECD. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Economic Development has outlined price increases throughout the country along the lines of 40 percent since the Government came into power and further to that is he aware that some power companies including taxpayer-owned companies such as Genesis Power are warning that there will be further power price increases in the pipeline very very shortly and is that acceptable to the Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have certainly seen some figures that are somewhere around the 30 percent level. I have not seen any at the 40 percent level. I have seen some gas price increases in the pipeline. But I can tell the member of prices for household power supply in some other countries. In Denmark for example the price is 43c in Italy 35c and in Japan 32c. They do not have the natural resources; they are richer countries than we are but sometimes we do not know how lucky we are. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that some of that price increase is a result of levies in order to increase power generation at Whirinaki and that there are complications now with Whirinaki being able to deliver the power it can generate because of limitations in the national grid? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly yes some of the ongoing cost is around Whirinaki and I understand that the person who briefed the newspaper on transmission limitations was somewhat out of date. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister recall that Labour when in Opposition promised to solve the electricity problems for New Zealanders and implied that prices would be cheaper; if he does recall that will he tell us how he will deliver on that promise and when New Zealanders can expect it to be delivered without him telling us to go and live in Denmark? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not recall that.
Copeland Gordon: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21891] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I too would like to take a brief call concerning Murray Smith’s amendment to omit from schedule 12 the statement of the religious belief of the iwi. In doing so I would like to endorse entirely the comments made by the member Pita Paraone. I say to Metiria that she has completely—[ 
Interruption 
]—Metiria Turei has completely missed the point. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Copeland has completely failed not only to use my proper name but to pronounce it in a way that is recognisable except in the most extreme way. I ask you to tell him that if he is going to refer to me he should use my full name properly. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was busy correcting that error when the member interrupted me. I have corrected the error. The member has completely missed the point that has been made by Pita Paraone. I would defend very very strongly any New Zealander’s right to freedom of religion. New Zealanders are free to believe anything they want to believe to pursue that to manifest that to practise that and by the way to leave it if they wish to at any point in time. Those freedoms are enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that we are setting a precedent in this bill for the inclusion of statements of religious belief in law. 
I will tell members why that is very dangerous. It is very dangerous because inevitably there will be people in this iwi who do not personally believe what is in that statement. The majority of the iwi may do. It may be their history. I do not dispute any of those facts at all. But individuals may want to make a quite different decision personally about their spiritual beliefs. If they do I can just imagine one of the elders saying: “But hang on what we believe is right.” When he is asked how he knows that he will say: “Because the Government of New Zealand has said it is right.” 
That is what we are actually doing with this provision; that is the precedent we are setting. I do not believe that that sort of statement has a place in a piece of law—because we are actually making law here. There is nothing wrong with incorporating it as an appendage to the actual settlement if the iwi want to do that or to put it as part of the papers with the settlement but in the view of United Future including myself it should not be included within the bill for that reason. It is a very unfortunate precedent.
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9359] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I was anticipating in the previous call that Mr Locke would state that he would vote in favour of this part. It is a reasonable request when one considers what the part is about and it is not really about what he was talking about. This part is about implementing two conventions—one in relation to nuclear material and the other in relation to plastic explosives. I would have thought that even the Green Party would want to put on record that it is opposed to those things. Did we hear that statement from them? Unfortunately Mr Locke did not say that. He had the opportunity and maybe he will have a further opportunity but he needed to say it. 
The reason that he needed to say it is that it is a statement of one’s values. Are we willing to be upfront and say that the worst forms of terrorism are surely plastic explosives and nuclear materials? Surely we would say we were against those things. What Mr Locke actually spoke about were various provisions in new clauses 14B 14C 14D and 14E. Those provisions which were not properly explained by him are all about revisiting the terrorism Act and his general obsessions and concerns are there too. At best that is peripheral. It might be important to him to talk about that even if the rest of us think it somewhat irrelevant but at least this Committee could have been assured. 
I would like to think that the vote on Part 2 will be unanimous—118 votes unless the Progressive coalition turns up—but at least that the people present actually voted for Part 2 as an affirmative statement that in relation to plastic explosives nuclear material and harbouring terrorists we are as one. I know that is an extraordinary concept within this Parliament but in this country there must be some minimum line or common ground by which we can all say that those things have to be prohibited. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does it include the Wild Greens? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The question has been asked as to whether that includes the Wild Greens. I would ask whether the Green Party is the Wild Greens because if Green members do not vote for this part that is exactly what they are. 
Mr Locke has taken one call on issues in this part but he needs to take another to say that he will vote for the two relevant conventions. After all one of the reasons the Government introduced this bill to the House was to implement those conventions. They make up an interlocking network of anti-terrorist conventions by the United Nations—an organisation not favoured by everyone in this House—and expresses pretty much universal human consent that certain activities have to be condemned in the most serious ways. 
Obviously National supports those provisions. We are not putting up amendments to this part but are taking the opportunity to say that on these issues we expect all New Zealanders to have a common view and to vote for those provisions.
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5426] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I thought I would rise to reply to Mr Prebble’s point. I say to members that I have checked carefully any substantial point that they thought they were making for factual support using the evidence of the officials and my own understanding of the bill. I have to say that none of the suggestions made have had any validity. 
To answer Mr Prebble’s comment first: ice cream was added to the Customs and Excise Act in September 2001 because of concerns about food and beverages coming into New Zealand with an alcohol content and not bearing proper excise duties. That is why ice cream is in the bill. Because of the level of alcohol content in this case it is not caught by the provision for 14 to 23 percent alcohol but it is subject to the increase in cost of living index prices which will be added on—as they are annually. That covers the point someone raised of why the two dates are different—one is for the imposition of this extra tax. If the House passes that tax it is immediate on the bill receiving the royal assent. Of course the industry expects consumer price indexes to go in June and that is the date on which they will take place. 
I want to raise one or two other things just as examples to assure the House that I have been keeping a close watch on its concerns. I refer to the question of alcohol excise duty being payable the timing what happens if orders are received and so on. Excise duty is payable when the goods are removed from a customs-controlled area or are imported. Stock that is already in the stores has already been taken out of the bond stores and would not be subject to that tax until the new product is taken out. 
Just by way of illustration the point was made a while back that there was something missing in terms of 9 percent but not more than 14 percent volume alcohol suddenly going to 20 percent. I know that but I am just giving examples. Members want a few examples and I have kept track of it. Those are all in schedule 1; these are schedule 2. That is fair enough but if I were trying to answer all of these questions it would take all my time. If there had been something that had any substance to it I would have raised it with the Committee but every time I checked or knew the answers to it myself nothing that has been raised so far has had any substance.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 159 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (3) by adding the following new paragraphs: 
(e)subsidence: 
(f)geothermal hazards.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
[Volume:607;Page:4887] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade from the Commonwealth of Australia led by the Hon Bruce Scott MP are present in the gallery.
Personal Explanations — New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
Personal Explanations — New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Personal Explanations 
New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yesterday I stated in a debate that the New Zealand First Party had voted with National to reduce the level of the pension. That statement was incorrect of course. New Zealand First had left the coalition at that point. I apologise to members opposite for that dastardly accusation.
Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21453] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 As others have mentioned a significant part of this bill deals with the thin capitalisation rules to ensure that foreign-owned banks in New Zealand pay their fair share of taxation. As I said earlier we are not asking them to pay any more than their fair share. But I am afraid that I cannot buy into the rather sunny utopian philosophy that has been voiced on this issue by the Hon Richard Prebble of ACT. He has just been joined in that sunny optimism by the Hon Nick Smith of the National Party. Both members correctly defined the problem: that we have to pass these huge tax bills. In fact there are two of them every year each about 160 pages long so we are churning out tax law at the rate of about 320 pages per year. I agree that that is a bad thing and I think that their analysis is correct in that regard but I do not think they have come up with a solution to the problem. 
 If we buy into the argument that a flat tax rate of let us say 20c in the dollar would mean that businesses would no longer endeavour to avoid paying tax or to minimise their tax bill I think we are dreaming. As someone who as I mentioned has worked in the sector I know that any self-respecting tax adviser to a big corporation does not really think he or she has done a good job unless the corporation ends up paying no tax whatsoever. That view will continue to be held regardless of whether the tax rate is 20c in the dollar. I do admit on the basis of human nature that the motivation to minimise tax is greater the higher the tax rate is but I simply dispute the optimistic view that if we had a rate of say 20c in the dollar that would somehow magically remove the need for bills such as this one. It certainly will not. 
The other thing I have been surprised by in this debate is the announcement by Peter Brown that New Zealand First will cut taxes. It has taken New Zealand First a long time to make that announcement and it almost sounds like a deathbed conversion. Anyway New Zealand First joins the ranks of all the parties in Parliament with the single exception now of the Labour Party—because Nick Smith is wrong is he not? The Greens do have a tax reduction policy; they want to make the first 5000 bucks earned by every taxpayer tax-free. Is that right? 
Sue Bradford 
: Absolutely! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Every single party in this Parliament except for the Labour Party now believes that the time has arrived for Kiwis to get some tax breaks and some tax cuts. So I think the New Zealand First announcement tonight is quite momentous from that point of view. Although New Zealand First is a johnny-come-lately at least it has finally got it right.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Sonja Davies 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Sonja Davies 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 June 2005 of Sonja Margaret Loveday Davies member of the Order of New Zealand who represented the electorate of Pencarrow from 1987 to 1993. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21200] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter should have been raised at the time. It was not. There is no set list of correct or incorrect terms except as we know someone may not be called a liar and we do have some forbidden terms such as “racist”. I did wonder whether someone would raise it at the time but I do not consider myself a censor in that sense.
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3653] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Like Mr Dunne I rise with intense enthusiasm. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what is necessarily a narrow but technical issue and an important piece of legislation. This bill has been introduced to enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act it will also enable the ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. New Zealand signed the Rotterdam convention on 11 September 1998. This convention requires information to be exchanged between parties about trade and hazardous chemicals before any trade takes place. Once parties are informed of the potential trade and their attention is drawn to any related health or environmental risks they may consent to importation with or without conditions or not consent to the trade at all.  
The convention currently lists 31 chemicals and pesticides for which all parties must notify import requirements. Its scope extends to controlling exports and notifying an international secretariat of all additional chemicals currently banned or severely restricted at the national level which in New Zealand amounts to approximately 100 substances. I reiterate the point made by my colleague the Hon John Tamihere in whose name the bill sits that the costs to the economy of the measures that arise from export controls are expected to be nil based on the current absence of exports. New Zealand signed the Stockholm convention on 23 May 2001. This convention seeks to protect human health and the environment by banning the production use or trial of certain persistent organic pollutants. These persistent organic pollutants are highly toxic. These pollutants can accumulate— 
Rodney Hide 
: Has there been research about that? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And when I say that I talk of persistent organic pollutants I must say that I do not refer to the ACT party although the description may well be apt. These pollutants can accumulate in living tissues and pose a threat to the quality of food particularly meat products—in which I know Mr Hide has a high degree of interest.  
Again the costs to the economy are expected to be nil based on current use and trade whereas as for the Rotterdam convention we will need to have the controls in place in case there should be such exports in the future. I commend the Minister’s management of this bill. I acknowledge Mr Dunne’s points about the level of enthusiasm with which the House deals with legislation like this. I look forward to Mr Ardern’s contribution which as always will be highly valued and expert and I commend the bill to the House.
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16078] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I want to draw the attention of the Committee to another matter contained in the bill which is the decision to overturn the Oram decision. The Oram decision was a litigated piece of law between the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and Mr Oram that went all the way to the Court of Appeal. The trade unions lost that case and the law has now been established. Having lost the case they came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and asked for the law to be changed. 
I say to the Minister that he should have established why that case should be overturned because after the judges had listened to the matter very carefully their view was that providing the employer thought the action was reasonable it should be able to stand. Now the test is not what the employer thought was reasonable but basically what this Government thinks is reasonable. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: If it’s a reasonable employer. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I say to the member that that invites litigation. I think it is a very bad principle when we have a section in a law that says we are overturning a particular court case. 
 I make the point to the Government that those members must have noticed and have heard the criticism that there are far too many cases where people— 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise this at the earliest opportunity as I did not get the last call. I want you to give some consideration to access to the lobby area and particularly to the main meeting room that is normally available for members of Parliament and the officials. I want you to consider the appropriateness of Ross Wilson president of the Council of Trade Unions being in that lobby room and then proceeding into the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It will be considered but at this point I must report progress. We will raise it with the Speaker tomorrow. 
Progress reported.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9392] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I say to the honourable member that if he wishes to draw the issue to the attention of the Speaker then it is his right to do so and he should do so. As for the other matter I will always consider the issue when it comes to the Committee stage and ensure that people are given adequate time to make their point of view known. 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.
Ririnui Mita: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20637] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) and start by congratulating the Minister the Hon Phil Goff on bringing the bill to the House. As clearly stated earlier on today the bill will put in place a new legal aid requirement to extend eligibility for legal aid and it will also put in place a repayment regime. I heard the previous speaker make his comments and although I think I heard him saying that he was supporting the bill I was not quite sure from the tone of his comments whether that in fact was what he believed. 
Some important aspects of the bill need to be highlighted in this the first reading and one of those issues is that the bill aims to ensure better access to legal representation and therefore to justice as this Government believes. As well the bill is based on the principle that access to justice ought not to depend on a person’s ability to pay. It is again a matter of access to justice. The bill also updates the criteria for eligibility for legal aid and introduces a new repayments and debts-management regime. Of course more people will qualify for legal aid as a result of this bill. 
A final point to be also mindful of is that the cost of additional grants will be offset by the requirement for a higher proportion of legal aid recipients to repay some or all of their legal aid grants. Those points are very important in terms of allowing all New Zealanders access to justice.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8818] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Two points of order ago you said that the House was resumed and I assume that that was just a slip. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member; I did mean to say that the Committee is resumed.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Business of the House 
Benson-Pope David: Business of the House 
[Volume:608;Page:5727] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill and the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill to proceeddirectly from their second reading to their third reading today. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is not.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8715] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 47E be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Brash Don: Election of Speaker 
Brash Don: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18947] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect may I on behalf of the National Party also offer warm congratulations to you on your elevation to this important role. Today you have become Parliament’s person and as the Prime Minister has said you will shortly go to the Governor-General to seek from her the privileges of Parliament and you have our unconditional support in doing that. Parliament is a place of robust and sometimes provocative debate within and sometimes at the very edge of the Standing Orders and that is the nature of our democracy. We hope and expect that you will have oversight over that role and ensure that that debate is well conducted. 
You come to this role with broad ministerial experience although not having experienced the joy of being a back-bencher—or perhaps the joy of being on the Opposition benches—but with your distinguished legal background we have no doubt at all that you will exercise your judgment and your authority without fear or favour. Perhaps uniquely in this House I myself have been subject to your guidance when you were on the board of the Reserve Bank and I can testify to your objectivity and perspicacity. 
Today you also achieve the trifecta in being the third woman in the order of precedence. We have a Governor-General who is a woman we have a Prime Minister who is a woman and we now have a Speaker who is a woman and I think that those three take priority in the order of precedence. I am not quite sure what the fourth equivalent of a trifecta is but Her Majesty the Queen is also in that line so we have an extraordinary list of prominent women in our democracy. 
I congratulate you Madam Speaker-Elect on being the first woman in this role. More generally I conclude by adding our congratulations to those of the Prime Minister and we wish you every success in your new role.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:617;Page:13321] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Earlier I sought leave for the Health Committee report on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 30 July 2004. I understand now that the member has been able to check that the Health Committee unanimously supported that move. So I seek that leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6404] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am old enough to remember the days when the then Prime Minister Keith Holyoake used to say that New Zealand was the greatest trading nation in the world. In fact it was true in those days. On a per capita basis we were the No. 1 trading nation in this world. Would that conditions were as benign today as they were then. In more recent times particularly in the last 25 years or so it has become more and more difficult in many ways and at many levels for New Zealand to expand its export trade. For that reason Trade New Zealand has been tremendously popular with the export and commercially orientated sectors of the New Zealand economy. Therefore we support the merger of Trade New Zealand with Industry New Zealand. We very much hope that—and I believe this is the way it will turn out to be—Trade New Zealand will be if one likes the leading culture of the two organisations as they come together. Also we very much hope that the tremendous commercial orientation that Trade New Zealand has built up and that is so popular with New Zealand exporters will go right back through the whole organisation into the more “within the borders of New Zealand” parts of the merger which traditionally were the preserve of Industry New Zealand. 
Small business in New Zealand has to be nurtured and assisted in every way never more so than when it takes that fateful step of trying to branch out into export markets. So often these days it seems to me the cards are stacked against New Zealand. Today for example a new Border Security Bill was introduced to the House. That bill is necessary because the United States of America has introduced new and extremely strict controls on the importation of goods to that nation. It will mean that in future New Zealand exporters have if one likes a higher hurdle to clear before they can get their goods into the United States of America—and that is just the latest example. That one I know is the result of the September 11 event and the battle of the US against worldwide terrorism but it is just another thing that impacts quite negatively on New Zealand exporters. 
Incidentally sometimes when the US does that it seems to me that it looks like a thinly disguised import-protection scheme. I hope that is not the case in this instance and that the new US border controls will be applied to all nations and not just to ports and airports but also to the border trade between the US and Canada to the north and Mexico to the south because I think that the latter in particular is a more likely entry point for terrorist organisations. I give that as just one example of the need we have for a well-resourced Government agency that has high expertise to get alongside and help foster the export growth of New Zealand and its businesses. United Future has pleasure in supporting the third reading of this bill.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13137] 
7.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What is being done to address workload pressures in the courts? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 This morning I announced a $73.5 million budget package designed to ease pressures on courts. Expenditure on modern technology is an important part of this package. In particular I was pleased to announce that $30 million will be spent over 4 years to increase the use of digital audio technology for evidence recording and transcription in 35 high and district courts. This will cut down waiting times by allowing judges to hear more cases faster. Judges are very positive about the new technology. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What else is being done to speed up court processes? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In this Budget a further $1.56 million is being invested in piloting the use of mediators to help resolve custody access and guardianship proceedings in four family courts as recommended by the Law Commission. This will allow judges to get on with hearings and provide another avenue for families to sort out the issues between them in a way that better meets their needs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has it taken the Minister a year to act on the suggestions that I gave him at that time? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is the most outrageous rewrite of history I have ever heard. That member tries to adopt this Government’s ideas as his own. I suggest to him that he catch up with the programme. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: To make an immediate impact on the case backlog will the Government consider asking the five Supreme Court judges to sit on the High Court to assist in clearing the crisis level of the backlog before that court? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There is a separation in the powers between the executive and the judiciary. It is not for me to tell judges when and where they will sit and not for me to tell them what cases they will hear. But I am happy to tell the member that in a number of courts the judiciary recognises pressure. For example in the civil courts there has been quite a significant reduction in cases being filed. Those judges have transferred themselves and their time to criminal courts and are doing an outstanding job. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table documents that show it is taking 2 weeks longer on average to get cases through the High Court and a month longer on average in the district courts in the last year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What documents are these? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They are answers to written questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Referral of Supreme Court Bill 
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Referral of Supreme Court Bill 
[Volume:608;Page:5915] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 2. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 2. Is there any objection? There is.
Stewart Barbara: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9892] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The purpose of Part 1 appears to New Zealand First to be very straightforward. The purpose statements in themselves are very clear as are the definitions listed there. I was pleased to see that there was no date specified on this particular bill as to when it comes into force as the bill has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is really good too to see the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am fully aware that although we do not always follow through on some of the recommendations from that particular body we do need to be reminded of that convention from time to time. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to see that the commissioner will have a role in helping to support and advocate for children in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We view the rights of the child as absolutely paramount. In particular when reviewing again the Convention on the Rights of the Child it was interesting to see that one of the most important parts is the right of a child and the rights of parents to have common responsibilities in the upbringing and development of the child and the declaration that parents and/or the legal guardians have the primary responsibility in the upbringing and development of the child and that is a fact recognised by the UN. We are particularly pleased to see that the commissioner will now have an absolute role in promoting this. We believe there has been too little acceptance that a child’s rights to acknowledge his or her own parents and for those parents to have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child have to be paramount and recognised. We hope that the commissioner can take a very robust role in this regard will not feel at all concerned about accepting any direction from any Government Minister or anyone else and can be an absolutely independent advocate for children. We are particularly pleased to see this part in the bill.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8447] 
7.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How many tractor accidents have there been over the last year? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am advised that in the last 4 years 14 people have been killed in tractor accidents in New Zealand. The latest data show that in the first 9 months of 2002-03 there were a total of 48 tractor accidents. To improve farm safety the Government has been working with Federated Farmers on a farm safety campaign. This encourages leadership amongst farmers to support injury prevention and the appointment of key persons to champion injury prevention. 
Mark Peck 
: What support has the Government received for its campaign? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Federated Farmers are fully behind the campaign. In fact they recently sent material on farm vehicle safety to a National Party MP as a result of his operating a tractor on Parliament’s steps without a safety frame and in blatant disregard for public safety. Federated Farmers have rightly expressed their extreme disappointment at the MP’s foolishness. I hope he feels some remorse for making a complete and utter idiot of himself on the steps of this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister went too far in his last comment. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Carter 
: How many tractor accidents occurred in 1987 the last time a tractor was driven on to the steps of Parliament—on that occasion by a senior Labour Party Minister? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not have exact figures but I can say that two wrongs do not make a right. It is interesting to note that at the time the National Party called for tough action against the member who did that as opposed to the weasel words of the current Leader of the Opposition on the current incident. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: If the Government had not put in place such a dumb proposal like the livestock emissions tax there would not have been a single tractor anywhere near the steps of Parliament so why does the Government not try the novel approach of reducing the costs of doing business in New Zealand for the wealth creators of this country for a change? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has no relevance to the original question but the Minister can comment very briefly if he wishes. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: A Government policy is no excuse for that member making a complete idiot of himself.