edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barnett Tim: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5749] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Committee has made good progress so far. I seek leave for the Committee to report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for me to report progress. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.  
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5749] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5749] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson you gave the Rt Hon Winston Peters a very liberal occasion on which to rebut my earlier arguments. I just want to take the opportunity of correcting three or four statements he made. Firstly in response to an interjection from Doug Woolerton he said there was a difference between a debt and a proposed liability. In my case I was talking about a debt; it was costs awarded by the courts. I took every opportunity to get that money from Winston Peters with a number of accounts being sent to him but to no avail. 
Mr Peters then said that I had had every opportunity—in fact I think he used the words that I “didn’t have the guts”—to ring him up and say I had served the documents on him in Parliament. I suggest to Mr Peters that he becomes familiar with Standing Order 400(c) which says that such processes are not allowed to be carried out in the precincts of Parliament without the express permission of the Speaker. 
The third point I want to correct is that Mr Peters said the matter concerned around $8000-odd. I cannot remember the exact figure but it was well in excess of $13000. 
The final point I want to make— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that you allowed Mr Peters a rebuttal and now you are allowing a rebuttal of that rebuttal. I do not think that is right and I just wanted to make that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You have made it. I was just about to stop the member at his final point. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The final point I want to make is that subsequent to further legal action Mr Peters lost for a second occasion. The courts have invited me to prepare a list of costs and it will be presented to Mr Peters. I hope that on this occasion he will front up and pay.
Barnett Tim: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5749] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5742] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I was again intrigued at the contribution made by Chris Finlayson who talked about a member of Parliament being sued for defamation and having to move the case to the High Court and seek a strikeout—with some success. I assume that Chris Finlayson was referring to my action involving the current Minister of Foreign Affairs the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
My question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel is whether there is any change to the way in which bankruptcy papers are served on the person from whom one is chasing money. In my particular case I had huge difficulty serving the bankruptcy papers on the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Of course after this case was successfully struck out in the High Court costs were awarded to me of about from memory $13000-odd— 
Shane Jones 
: Oh chicken feed! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well it might be chicken feed if one double-dips in the way that Shane Jones does but in my case it was quite a significant amount of money. 
Despite repeated attempts through solicitors to get Mr Peters to front up and pay his due bills it became a matter whereby the only way we could make progress was to try to serve some bankruptcy papers on the Minister of Foreign Affairs the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Minister may be interested to know that in my particular case it was quite difficult to do so because the officer serving the papers asked where he lived in Wellington. We looked up the electoral roll and of course Winston Peters was not on the roll in Wellington. He appeared to be of no fixed abode which made it quite difficult. 
Craig Foss 
: Hummingbird. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: In fact I suggested that the guy go to Courtenay Place and just hang out there for a while and eventually he would find him. 
The long and the short of it was that on one occasion we were able to find him when we knew he was going to have a beer at the Back Bencher. 
Hon Member 
: Did that work? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It did work. Ultimately after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of time—and no doubt more cost—we managed to catch up with the Rt Hon Winston Peters to serve bankruptcy papers on him as he walked into the Back Bencher on Molesworth Street. 
My simple question to the Minister in the chair is whether this legislation in any way makes it easier to serve bankruptcy papers on any member of the public or any Minister of the Crown who owes money and repeatedly refuses to pay it. From my recent experience when a person lives a fairly nomadic lifestyle—as the Rt Hon Winston Peters does—it becomes quite difficult to track that person down. So it is a relatively simple question for the Minister. She struggled to answer the question we put to her earlier but in this case we hope she is a little better briefed on the legislation. We ask whether this legislation in any way changes the current provisions for the serving of bankruptcy papers on any person particularly the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he does not pay his bills.
Dalziel Lianne: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5741] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to explain this part. It provides for the application by a debtor for his or her own adjudication and bankruptcy. Previously a debtor had to apply to the High Court for adjudication. Now the application will be made to the official assignee. As was the case before the adjudication is automatic on the application being made. The only procedural requirement is that the debtor must first file a statement of affairs with the official assignee which allows the official assignee to advise debtors of alternatives to bankruptcy and of their best option. The reason I am spelling it out is that this part is a very technical restatement apart from the change to that one aspect of the existing law.
Beyer Georgina: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5740] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5741] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5741] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3 be agreed to.
Street Maryan: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5734] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to speak to this Insolvency Law Reform Bill and to have been on the Commerce Committee during the progress of this bill—which the previous speaker was not. I would like to get to the point of the National Opposition’s minority view on this bill because there was much more unanimity on this bill around the select committee table than would be indicated by National’s blanket opposition to the bill as it stands. 
There were two points on which National decided to oppose this bill just for the sake of it. One was to do with the issue of voluntary administration and it hinged around the creditor status of the Inland Revenue Department. This status means that when a company goes into liquidation or elects to go into a voluntary administration regime the department has the first call upon the moneys owing. I will explain in case members opposite do not understand the significance just what that means in practical terms. 
First of all the department’s priority status is absolutely essential. If workers in a company that is going under are to receive the payments due to them the department has a claim on PAYE GST child support payments and other welfare payments that are due to it. It seems to me that it is right and proper to retain the department’s creditor status in order to ensure that the moneys due—as those moneys are—are not misappropriated by companies and allowed to be used to pay for other things. We did hear examples of companies that have not paid PAYE but have banked that money for 1 2 or 5 years and have used it to employ additional staff. That is not correct by any yardstick or measure. 
Those were particular examples but there is a general principle at issue as well—that is the department has entitlements that must be observed. When we looked into some of the examples we found that the department could perhaps improve its processes. Even by its own admission it said it could improve its processes for extracting the entitlements that are due. So we tightened up provisions in this legislation to ensure that where payments due were defaulted on for two pay periods or more they were then brought to the attention of the directors so that the directors did not go on blindly with the default position and not pay the due entitlements. That is an example of a particular application of the department’s creditor status. 
Beyond that and I alluded to this earlier is the general principle of the Inland Revenue Department’s creditor status. The department is required by law to make sure that it receives the entitlements due to it—and that is the basis of the department’s priority—so there is no reason for the Opposition to oppose this bill on that count.
Street Maryan: Third Readings 
Street Maryan: Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:5725] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this legislation—unlike the previous speaker John Key—and wish to make a couple of comments in response. First of all this omnibus legislation is intended to encourage investment in New Zealand’s financial markets by strengthening the regulatory framework in our securities securities trading and takeovers laws. As a member of the Commerce Committee which attended to this legislation I have pleasure in bringing it back with amendments that have been unanimously supported by the parties around the select committee table. For all the previous speaker’s opportunism and barely related cant the legislation is an important part of the Government’s securities law reform programme. 
In addition to the comments made by the Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel in her third reading speech I say it is designed to ensure that regulation encourages an efficient and effective market for securities trading. It reduces transaction costs for trans-Tasman companies by aligning parts of our law more closely with Australia. It also enhances the integrity of New Zealand’s financial markets by providing domestic and international investors with the assurance that our regulation in this area is consistent with international norms. 
The main provisions of this legislation are to do with insider trading definitions prohibitions against market manipulation substantial security holder disclosure and declaration of contravention mechanisms. The amendments that the Commerce Committee has as I have said unanimously put forward in the report attached to this legislation are in large measure amendments that simply allow for consistency and for comprehensiveness of these provisions. 
This is good and modern omnibus legislation. It has been well served by the officials who have advised the select committee. I also congratulate the chair of the select committee Katherine Rich for her guidance of this legislation through the process. So far from scoring cheap shots of dubious worth and even more dubious accuracy I would rather stick to the content of this legislation and commend it to the House for passage.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5722] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just ask for a bit of further clarification on that matter. I think you are being very good in being quite specific about what your thinking will be should you receive other requests subsequent to the tabling of the report today but it would seem to me that if you follow the logic that you are apparently going to apply here then this House would never have had a snap debate on the September 11 tragedy for example or on other numerous other incidents that have occurred internationally for which clearly the Government of New Zealand has no responsibility and carries no particular ability to affect the outcome. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I say there are various methods as I indicated in my statement as to how debates in the House can be held.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5721] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a transcript of the Minister of Health and Labour’s strategist Pete Hodgson in which he was directly asked whether Labour would pay the money back and he said “No we won’t be paying it back.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5721] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Auditor-General’s report on advertising expenditure and the Speaker’s response to the report. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must be an event that has occurred before the House meets. The presentation of a paper at the commencement of a sitting does not give grounds for a debate at that sitting. This application is declined on that ground. 
I must also point out to members that the reports that are the subject of the application do not involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The advertising expenditure in question is appropriated in Vote Parliamentary Service. The Parliamentary Service is not an instrument of executive government. The appropriations are made in respect of each parliamentary party for party and member support. They cover funding for the parliamentary parties to support their leaders’ officers research operations whips’ offices and members’ parliamentary operations. Ministers are not responsible as Ministers for that spending. The spending is incurred as members of a parliamentary party not as Ministers. The Speaker is the responsible Minister for Vote Parliamentary Service. It is the Speaker who is answerable for the appropriations not a Minister. Any future such application could be declined on that ground. 
 This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the immediate attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of the urgent debate procedure the principal purpose of which is to hold the Government accountable for urgent and important matters for which it is responsible. I ask members to give consideration to facilitating the debating of the matter early next week when members have had an opportunity to read and digest the reports.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5714] 
9.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What does the Minister estimate the likely annual revenue loss to this country will be if changes to the European Union butter import rules mean that Fonterra can no longer act as sole importer to the European Union for its products? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The suspension of New Zealand butter imports to the European Union in July clearly put New Zealand’s butter trade and revenue at risk. However in working with officials we were able to first avoid disruption to the butter trade then through an interim arrangement ensure that we could fill—and we have filled—our 2006 butter quota without loss of revenue to the New Zealand exporter. No decision or agreement however has yet been reached on rules that may apply in future years. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister envisage any long-term loss of market share as a result of the European Union decision and what steps if any are Government trade negotiators taking to avoid such a loss from occurring? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure it would be the intention of the European Commission if it thought it could achieve it to remove the quota rent from New Zealand. However New Zealand is staunchly resisting that. The negotiators have been in Brussels in the last two weeks of last month. We have made it absolutely clear that our expectations are that although the European Court of Justice decision is upheld that will not be at the expense of a contract negotiated between and accepted in good faith by the European Union and New Zealand back in 1995.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5712] 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to extend eligibility for childcare assistance? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that on Monday this week the income limits for eligibility for childcare assistance were increased by around $5000 making approximately 1250 families eligible for childcare assistance for the first time. In addition approximately 3900 families who are already receiving childcare assistance will automatically get a higher rate. More than 5000 families now stand to benefit from increases to childcare and out-of-school care and recreation—known as “OSCAR”—subsidies. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can he inform the House how many families are currently receiving childcare assistance? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: At the end of August this year 34900 families were receiving childcare assistance for over 43000 children. I am pleased to inform the House that this uptake is greater than was forecast for that period. 
Judy Turner 
: Has he considered when extending the eligibility for childcare assistance the need for respite care for kinship caregivers; if not does he accept that the Government is at risk of taking advantage of grandparents who take on the burden of raising their grandchildren in their golden years and that the Government should start to recognised those grandparents’ contribution to society? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not agree with that member’s proposition. As she is aware the Government is currently undergoing policy development work in line with the undertaking in last year’s election manifesto.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5705] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article from the  
Marlborough Express 
 entitled “Don gets an ear bashing” which sets out that Don Brash was going to fix the Awatere Bridge even though it has already been built. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table  
Marlborough Roads 
 which sets out that the Awatere Bridge commenced in February this year—long before Don Brash went down to start the process. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let me remind members particularly some seated I am afraid in back rows that when points of order are being made there is no comment. That is the last warning.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5706] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: What is the Government doing to preserve the Kiwi lifestyle by keeping New Zealanders fit and healthy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 The Government has invested $67 million over 4 years to give New Zealand’s young people and their families the tools to become active and healthy. The package includes the improvement of nutrition in schools and early childhood education services school-based health promotion events the creation of youth-focused websites to promote healthy eating and physical activity the sponsorship of television and radio programmes that promote healthy choices and Government departments leading by example in the promotion of healthy workplaces. The Labour-led Government is committed to giving young New Zealanders the best chance at a long and healthy future. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other initiatives is the Government undertaking to encourage New Zealanders to be more active? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Push Play Nation campaign runs throughout October culminating in Push Play Day on 3 November. This includes a challenge to find New Zealand’s most active region. It will be again the occasion of challenges between parties and the media in order to show who is more active. I think it is very important because people around this building are like most New Zealanders with more than 50 percent of us overweight or obese. Push Play Nation encourages everyone to incorporate regular physical activity into their daily routines to prevent obesity from becoming an epidemic. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with a recent submitter to the Health Committee Dr Miles Williams that the best chance of giving young New Zealanders a long and healthy future is to reduce the overwhelming pressures on them to eat unhealthy food by changes such as prohibiting the advertising marketing and sponsorship of energy-dense foods directed at children particularly in the school setting and at sports events if we are to be successful in averting the looming health crisis and in giving young New Zealanders a good chance for a healthy life? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The short answer is “No”. The reason I do not think that is the case is that I think all the informed evidence now is that taking a balanced approach is important. It is a matter of combining healthy balanced eating—absolute bans have been shown not to work—and a good menu of physical activity rather than being obsessed about one little area.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5699] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not know of course until I have seen the Auditor-General’s report and the Speaker’s response to that. However I can tell the member that I have verbal advice from both Treasury and Crown Law that repayment of moneys has no relationship to the expenditure being unlawful including the National Party expenditure and that can be remedied only by legislation.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5699] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us any indication at this stage as to whether he believes there will be a need for Parliament to set aside time for legislation that might result from the Auditor-General’s report today.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5699] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill the Communications Legislation Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the Sports Anti-Doping Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5699] 
Thursday 12 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill the Communications Legislation Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us any indication at this stage as to whether he believes there will be a need for Parliament to set aside time for legislation that might result from the Auditor-General’s report today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not know of course until I have seen the Auditor-General’s report and the Speaker’s response to that. However I can tell the member that I have verbal advice from both Treasury and Crown Law that repayment of moneys has no relationship to the expenditure being unlawful including the National Party expenditure and that can be remedied only by legislation.
King Annette: Public Transport Management Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Public Transport Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12383] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Transport Management Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 and the committee be required to report back to the House in 5 months’ time on or before 14 March 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Public Transport Management Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Public Transport Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12383] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I just want to take a very brief call to say that I am in support of the first reading of the Public Transport Management Bill. After that extraordinary speech from the temporary National Party member of Parliament for Hamilton East I think that listeners need to have it made really clear to them that the National Party is voting in favour of the bill that its associate spokesperson on transport just ranted about incomprehensibly for 10 minutes. Considering the look of pride on the face of his colleagues I am really pleased to have taken this very brief call. 
Bill read a first time.
Pillay Lynne: Trustee Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Trustee Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12362] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I really have very little to add to all the good speeches from other members. We all know that this Trustee Amendment Bill was based on recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 2002 report. The report related to some problems relating to the law of trusts. In its discussion document on that matter the Law Commission stated: “There is much to be said for the view that the Trustee Act 1956 is in important respects confused and confusing”. Clearly this Government—and indeed other parties in this House—has taken these opinions on board and sees that there is a need to remedy some of the problems through the Trustee Amendment Bill. 
The amendments will change a number of Acts: the Trustee Act 1956 the Administration Act 1969 the District Courts Act 1947 and the Wills Act 1837 from the UK. A number of these Acts as we can see go back for a considerable period. Some of the main changes are to what trustees can do. That includes allowing trustees an ability to insure against loss or damage due to any event allowing advisory trustees to work alongside trustees in the administration of a trust property and allowing trustees to employ either an agent or an attorney and to be exempted under certain circumstances from liability for acts of default of that agent or attorney. The bill also moves proceedings against a trustee from the District Court where they are currently held into the High Court. 
I know that Kate Wilkinson mentioned protectors. That is one of the concerns or problems that the bill addresses. A protector is a person with certain powers such as the power to direct or veto the exercise of trustee powers or the power to choose or veto the trustees’ choice of beneficiaries of the trust. Trustees under the Act are obliged to act on the direction of the protector with no statutory provision enabling them to challenge any such direction if it is fundamentally objectionable. A responsible trustee should be able to disregard the fact that advice from an advisory trustee is or may be wrong. A responsible trustee should be empowered to challenge a problematic direction from a trust protector. That is one of the issues this bill seeks to address. 
I know as other speakers have said that when this bill goes to the hard-working and effective Justice and Electoral Committee—although we may have questions from Mr Finlayson in this House around the timekeeping—the committee will as it always does give very very careful scrutiny to this bill and ensure that submitters are heard in a meaningful way. I would think that if changes are to be made then the Justice and Electoral Committee will make very clear and meaningful recommendations to this House. However at this point it is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Trustee Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12355] 
1.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How long did the Justice and Electoral Committee spend considering the Electoral Finance Bill on Thursday 11 October? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 Members of the committee who were at the meeting including the member are aware or should be aware that the time spent on consideration was consistent with the posted schedule. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Given that the committee spent only 15 minutes on the Electoral Finance Bill last week will the committee be rehearing some submitters who wanted to make an oral submission such as Federated Farmers and the Hospitality Association so that those organisations get a fair and full hearing instead of being berated by the chair for being late even though they were told the wrong time for presenting their oral evidence? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That member continues to be very very silly in this House. The member should be aware that the bill is set down for 4 hours’ consideration at the next meeting. Over 22½ committee hours have been spent on this bill so far and the work is ongoing.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12354] 
11.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she believe that the use of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 by the Police is justified and appropriate; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is not for the Minister of Police to decide when if or whom it is appropriate for the police to prosecute or what Act they will use for that prosecution. 
Keith Locke 
: Does she agree with the former Minister of Justice Phil Goff back in 2003 when he said: “Terrorism should be dealt with under general criminal law wherever possible because terrorist acts are usually criminal offences committed with an ideological political or religious motive.” and is she confident that where a terrorist offence has been invoked to date there was not a criminal offence that could have stood in its place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the first part of the member’s question yes. In respect of the second part I have no comment to make.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12349] 
7.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House of 12 September 2007: “My understanding is that the Law Commission which is headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer has taken the view that before any such change should occur there would need to be a great deal of work on what the legal implications of it might be.” in relation to my New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill; if so how did he reach that understanding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes; because that is what Sir Geoffrey communicated to me. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is he nevertheless now prepared to accept that in line with the evidence sent to the select committee it is in fact also the view of the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer President of the Law Commission that private property rights should be included in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware that indeed Sir Geoffrey made a speech on 10 February 2006 in which he stated that fact. However both he and Professor Burrows of the Law Commission believe that before any such step could be taken a comprehensive study of New Zealand statute law and common law is necessary to work out the policy and fiscal implications of any such change. No such study has been done and it would be irresponsible to make such a change until one was done. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Attorney-General concede that the taking of a person’s property by central or local government without compensation is theft; if so is the Government prepared to outlaw such actions for all time by giving property rights the protection of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The ability to take property is covered by a range of other legislation which also includes the right to compensation. The member’s bill of course also refers to the use and enjoyment of a person’s property. Given first of all a lack of definition of property which has a very wide meaning in the law and the language of use and enjoyment which is extremely wide indeed one could be asking for compensation for everything. As Attorney-General I believe we have enough litigation already without inviting a vast increase in the amount that we have. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If this great deal of work which was suggested by Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission and which the Attorney-General referred to earlier were to be done is his Government prepared to commit so that all New Zealanders including those of modest means who do not have the resources to defend their rights through the courts can be assured of having their private property rights protected through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If such a large exercise were engaged in then depending on the results obviously the Government would consider the results of that exercise.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Operation 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Operation 
[Volume:642;Page:12339] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised last week to give some consideration to the operation of the sub judice rule. It seems to me that it is important in any consideration of it to emphasise the high constitutional nature of the rule. It stands as an expression of the relationship between the different branches of government—the legislative branch and the judicial branch. This House determines what the law should be but it is for the courts to determine in each particular case how the law is to be applied. In criminal matters it is not for this House to decide guilt or innocence. That is a matter for a court of law. Standing Order 112 defines quite precisely when this constitutional principle is engaged. 
Where it is engaged this House does not embark either by debate or by question on an examination of matters that are for adjudication by a court. Not only is this prejudicial and unfair to those involved in judicial proceedings; it is contrary to our constitutional practices. The Speaker will therefore be vigilant to ensure that these are maintained.
Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Operation 
Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Operation 
[Volume:642;Page:12339] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Sub Judice Rule—Operation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised last week to give some consideration to the operation of the sub judice rule. It seems to me that it is important in any consideration of it to emphasise the high constitutional nature of the rule. It stands as an expression of the relationship between the different branches of government—the legislative branch and the judicial branch. This House determines what the law should be but it is for the courts to determine in each particular case how the law is to be applied. In criminal matters it is not for this House to decide guilt or innocence. That is a matter for a court of law. Standing Order 112 defines quite precisely when this constitutional principle is engaged. 
Where it is engaged this House does not embark either by debate or by question on an examination of matters that are for adjudication by a court. Not only is this prejudicial and unfair to those involved in judicial proceedings; it is contrary to our constitutional practices. The Speaker will therefore be vigilant to ensure that these are maintained.
Hutchison Paul: Motions — Nobel Peace Prize 2007—Role of New Zealand Scientists 
Hutchison Paul: Motions — Nobel Peace Prize 2007—Role of New Zealand Scientists 
[Volume:642;Page:12339] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the over 25 scientists from New Zealand who contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which has led to it being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  
The prize is shared with Senator Al Gore. As was noted by the Royal Society of New Zealand: “We can be proud that our researchers are doing work that is not just at a world-class standard but is vital to the security of humanity.” 
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Nobel Peace Prize 2007—Role of New Zealand Scientists 
Motions — Nobel Peace Prize 2007—Role of New Zealand Scientists 
[Volume:642;Page:12339] 
Tuesday 16 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Nobel Peace Prize 2007—Role of New Zealand Scientists 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the over 25 scientists from New Zealand who contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which has led to it being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  
The prize is shared with Senator Al Gore. As was noted by the Royal Society of New Zealand: “We can be proud that our researchers are doing work that is not just at a world-class standard but is vital to the security of humanity.” 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Insolvency Bill Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Insolvency Bill Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:6187] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Insolvency Bill the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bills read a third time.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6170] 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: What action is being taken in the lead-up to national Push Play Day on 3 November to get more New Zealanders physically active? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Sport and Recreation New Zealand is currently running Push Play Nation a campaign that aims to increase awareness of physical activity and to encourage New Zealanders to form a habit of being physically active. The media campaign provides ideas on how to be active including in the workplace. It culminates in Push Play Day on Friday 3 November with activities running in regions around the country. Of course members opposite believe that if people get a tax cut they do not need to engage in physical activity. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has he seen on initiatives to encourage greater physical activity in the workplace? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A number of such proposals are around but I have also heard a suggestion that in this workplace—Parliament Buildings—attempts to make exercise facilities available to all staff are being frustrated by members opposite particularly by one who reportedly used to coach rugby at St Bede’s College by driving his car along the sideline in order to avoid walking.
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6168] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise an issue which is I think a very important one for the House to consider and that is the events that just happened during the past question. I did not want to interrupt my colleague the Minister in her answers but I think there is a really important issue of order here that is worthy of your consideration and the consideration of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The point I am making is this. Last week I was asked to remove myself from the House because I apparently had interjected on what I had thought was a speech but actually was a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are heard in silence remember. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I left immediately but on my way out let the whip know that I was the duty Minister. Later in the afternoon because I apparently had delayed leaving it was asked that I be named which was a complete and utter surprise to me. I find it absolutely incredible that a member goes to leave the House then comes back to argue the point with you on a point of order. I know that you have dealt with it but I think it is an issue in terms— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the point—I have dealt with it. Please be seated.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6162] 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still maintain that the Ingram report was “very comprehensive and thorough”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister tell this House and the New Zealand public why they should have any confidence in her Government and the findings of the Ingram report given the evidence that Sunan Siriwan was told by Taito Phillip Field to lie if he was questioned by the New Zealand Police; and is that acceptable behaviour for a Labour member of her Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any allegations can be considered by the police. Mr Siriwan was of course interviewed by Mr Ingram. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister now accept that Mr Siriwan did not speak to Noel Ingram QC because he was under such extreme pressure from Taito Phillip Field not to speak to Noel Ingram QC? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Siriwan had the opportunity to speak to the inquiry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Ingram report is full of gaping holes because she refused to give Noel Ingram extra powers of investigation when he asked for them and because potential witnesses were not assisted with independent legal advice; and was that because the last thing she wanted was for the truth about Taito Phillip Field’s activities to be uncovered by the investigation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No no and no. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she think it is acceptable for Taito Phillip Field a member of her Government to attempt to obstruct the police investigation into his activities; if not what specific actions will she take as a result of the information that has become public today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any new allegations and evidence can be referred to the police and considered by them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why despite all of the information that has now come to light does the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in Taito Phillip Field as a member of Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Field is on leave and the police are undertaking an investigation. Unlike the members opposite we are not going to direct the police as to their conclusions.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The members who were ejected from the National side of the House were also out of the Chamber until the end of question time.
Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Ejection of Members 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On Tuesday of this week a large number of National Party MPs were ejected from the House for various reasons and the penalty on that occasion was that they were to stay out of the House for the rest of the day. Yesterday an equal number of Labour members were required to leave the Chamber but the penalty it seemed was commuted to be just until the end of question time. Madam Speaker we would appreciate knowing whether there will be some consistency applied to members regardless of which side of the House they are on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The members who were ejected from the National side of the House were also out of the Chamber until the end of question time.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Ejection of Members 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On Tuesday of this week a large number of National Party MPs were ejected from the House for various reasons and the penalty on that occasion was that they were to stay out of the House for the rest of the day. Yesterday an equal number of Labour members were required to leave the Chamber but the penalty it seemed was commuted to be just until the end of question time. Madam Speaker we would appreciate knowing whether there will be some consistency applied to members regardless of which side of the House they are on.