edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9787] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
The purpose of the legislation is clearly set out in clause 3 and its effect at application in clause 5. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister in the chair however on an issue that I have been thinking about for a couple of days in relation to clause 4. As I said clause 3 “Purpose” is pretty clear: “The purpose of this Act is to codify the law that prevents a person (the killer) who kills another person (the victim) by committing homicide from benefiting as a result of the victim’s death …”. 
One then turns to clause 4 which includes the definition of homicide and it is all reasonably clear. But there are a number of exclusions in that definition. The first under clause 4(1) is “(a) a killing caused by negligent act or omission;”. The second is “(b) infanticide …” which is covered in section 178 of the Crimes Act. The third is “(c) a killing of a person by another in pursuance of a suicide pact;”. The fourth importantly is “(d) an assisted suicide”. 
The term “assisted suicide” is also defined in this clause and I would welcome some guidance from the Minister on subclause (1)(a) because an assisted suicide under this subclause “means the killing of a person by another person directly or indirectly if”—and this is the important word—“immediately before death the deceased asked the other person to help them to commit suicide;”. 
What I would really like to know is how immediate is immediately. I think for example of “Dr Death” from Michigan—Dr Kevorkian—who was just released from prison in Oregon in the last few days. Dr Kevorkian would assist people with suicide but the intentions I think were pretty well known in many of the cases at least well before the actual act. Under this legislation would that assistance be considered to be immediate? I doubt it. So I would like to know how immediate must immediate be in order for it to be an assisted suicide. 
If hypothetically I had spoken to a doctor and I knew I was going to die—I was miserable I did not want to live I had been in Opposition for too long—so I decided I would contact Dr Kevorkian and he and I chatted it through 3 to 4 weeks before the actual act would that come within the term of assisted suicide or would that be a disqualifying act of homicide? I would be most grateful if the Minister could assist.
Robertson H V Ross: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9787] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I had just actually noticed that myself so thank you for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. I urge the member to return to Part 1 which is clauses 3 to 6. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I thank the member for the guidance offered. Perhaps I might then just deal very briefly with the question that was raised by the previous speaker: the suggestion that the legislation is somewhat inflexible particularly as to degrees of culpability and homicide. I suppose the primary point to make on that is that the legislation is codifying the law—the Law Commission report is clear about that—and the discretion that has been contended for does not exist in the common law. Clearly there would be issues with bringing it forward into a codification of the law. I understand that in jurisdictions overseas where a discretion has been introduced an undesirable element of uncertainty has been introduced into the law. But it would also be useful to point out that given the wide-ranging definition of homicide in the legislation there is probably sufficient flexibility for a judge to do justice in individual cases with the flexibility afforded. 
I appreciate the opportunity to take a short call on Part 1 and I will leave my comments at that.
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9787] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to address three clauses where the committee has recommended some material changes. I will deal firstly with clause 8 and the issue of joint tenancy. Obviously for those not familiar with the concept— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 1 and the member is speaking on Part 2. He has referred to clause 8 which is in Part 2. We are debating Part 1 which is clauses 3 to 6.
Wagner Nicky: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9785] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As members have heard National is pleased to support the Arbitration Amendment Bill . As the title indicates this bill amends the Arbitration Act 1996 and it is designed to improve the Act. 
We are pleased with these amendments because the use of arbitration to resolve disputes is genuinely increasing. It is more cost-effective and more efficient to use arbitration than to go to court. Businesses tend to prefer arbitration because with the present overcrowding of courts and the resulting delays in getting cases heard it is more efficient. Businesses also appreciate that by choosing arbitration parties can select an appropriate arbitrator rather than have to have an appointed judge. An arbitrator can be selected on his or her technical skills qualifications or specific experience and that increases his or her ability to resolve the dispute. Finally businesses also appreciate the confidentiality of the process. 
The amendments in this bill are based on the New Zealand Law Commission’s 2003 report  
Improving the Arbitration Act 1996 
 . Although the report concluded that the Act was generally working well there were several issues that it felt should be addressed to improve its operation and this is being done. Finally I say that National supports this bill and its amendments which improve the 1996 Act and will encourage the use of arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient way to resolve disputes. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9784] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I congratulate Mr Fairbrother on that contribution; it was one worthy of  
Monty Python’s Flying Circus 
. All I want to say in relation to these clauses is that they are good legislation and deal with two important substantive matters. The first matter is confidentiality which I will not go over again. The second is to give effect to the most recent developments at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and I am delighted that it was timely to have this bill so that we could deal with article 7 of the model law dealing with interim measures. The other changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee effectively dealt with deletions from the bill. As I covered those when I dealt with Part 1 I will not deal with them now. 
The only other thing I want to comment on concerns the issue of employment arbitration which is set out in the committee’s report. I was not in the Chamber when Mr Chauvel spoke but I am sure he would have dealt with it. I know that the issue is largely academic because most matters involving employment law will probably end up either before the Employment Relations Authority or go on to the court. At least the opportunity is there for an employment arbitration now as the law is quite clear that the Arbitration Act 1996 is not going to have any application. So if in those one in 1000 or one in 100-type situations it was possible for there to be an employment arbitration it would have to be conducted under the provisions of the English common law and that is really quite unsatisfactory. 
In my view either we remove from the Employment Relations Act the ability to have arbitration or we clarify the rules as to how arbitrations are to be conducted. In 21st century New Zealand to rely on the provisions of the English common law is really quite unsatisfactory. Although it is not a major matter maybe it is something that could be referred to the Law Commission. The next time it opines on further improvements to the Arbitration Act which of course it will with the passage of time maybe we could deal with that matter then. Other than that it is good legislation. As I said earlier it should have been in force some time ago so let us not tarry any further and get it enacted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9782] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on this part. I thank members for their contributions. I thank those learned lawyers—a couple on the National Party side and a couple on the Government side—for their contributions. I think it has been said and well stated in respect of the amendments proposed to clauses 6 to 9 that this is one of those rare moments in Parliament when there is unanimity and I think we should proceed forthwith.
Robertson H V Ross: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9782] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I put the question we have before us an amendment to insert a new clause 4A. It has been put forward by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell. I advise the member that the amendment is out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill. I now therefore put the question that Part 1 stand part. 
Part 1 agreed to.
[Volume:639;Page:9777] 
We agreed with the incorporation of those provisions in the model law. We did feel though that it was a little unfortunate that we continually have to update procedural legislation such as the matters that have been dealt with by the committee on the model law by having to revert to the House through primary legislation. We felt certainly in the initial stages of our consideration that there ought to be a mechanism by which these sorts of things could be dealt with—perhaps by sub-delegated legislation considered very closely by the Regulations Review Committee and subject to the disallowance procedure. But we were advised by officials that this was seen as undesirable constitutionally largely as far as I can recall because New Zealand does not tend to adopt all the model law recommendations.
[Volume:639;Page:9777] 
I turn now to clause 8 and the amendments to the model law and again refer to the submission from the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand presented by David Williams QC. As the previous speaker mentioned he alerted the committee to recent changes to the model law on international commercial arbitration. This model law of course was the measure on which the original 1996 bill was based. Mr Williams recommended to us on behalf of the institute that the recently approved changes to the model law should be incorporated into the bill.
[Volume:639;Page:9776] 
The institute pointed out that in practice the arbitral tribunal ought to be able to resolve any issues regarding evidence and witnesses without the need for further action. Having taken the advice of officials on the institute’s submission we agreed that the proposed amendment should be withdrawn. The original amendment’s effect would have been to reduce undesirably the control the arbitral tribunal has over the process and contrary to the general aims of the legislation would have provided for undesirably easy access to the courts during the process. We felt that would have been truly at odds with the principle of reduced judicial involvement which was intended to be a theme in the original Act and was one that we wanted to make sure was carried through in the current legislation.
[Volume:639;Page:9776] 
I refer to the point of arbitral tribunals and the control they can exercise over proceedings. Clearly the arbitral tribunal ought to determine the hearing date and the length of time it would take to complete the hearing. We felt that if a party had trouble during the process in obtaining evidence or getting witnesses to the hearing then the requirement to approach the arbitral tribunal first would ensure that that tribunal would be able to have better control over the issue of whether the hearing would proceed on the agreed commencement date. Without that control clearly it would be more difficult for the tribunal truly to be seized of control over the proceedings. There did not seem to be the justification for outside oversight at that early stage of a procedural matter such as being able to compel a witness to attend because a party felt it was necessary.
[Volume:639;Page:9776] 
We heard from the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand and in passing I pay tribute to the submission it made. It was very helpful and comprehensive as one would expect given the experience of the members of that body in dealing with alternative dispute resolution. The institute did not support the proposed amendment because it felt it would undesirably remove control of the arbitral process from the arbitrator and instead see it vested in either the High Court or the District Court as the case may be.
[Volume:639;Page:9776] 
As is apparent from the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee the Law Commission recommended an amendment to schedule 1 to the effect that when a party wishes to seek the court’s assistance—for example in the event that a subpoena is required to be issued during the arbitration or prior to it for the purpose of ensuring that the arbitral tribunal can be seized of evidence required—it will no longer be required to seek the consent of the arbitral tribunal first.
Chauvel Charles: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9776] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think that the matters I ought to comment on concerning the relevant part of the bill are the provisions addressed by the previous speaker. I may deal with them from a slightly different angle and I will start with clause 8(1) which amends schedule 1.
Locke Keith: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
Locke Keith: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
[Volume:639;Page:9774] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a couple of documents that I referred to in my speech. The authors of the first document are George Shultz William Perry Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. It is entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The second document I seek leave to table is the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention document submitted by Costa Rica to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in April and May of this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
Brown Peter: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
[Volume:639;Page:9763] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened to that speech from the Hon Murray McCully with interest. He did not even crack a smile and he certainly said it as if he believed what he was saying. But the National Party if I am correct—and I am sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed this legislation in 1987. Then National came to power in 1990 and stuck with the legislation. Yet when it got into Opposition in 1999 it said it would be gone by lunch time. Is this not the legislation that the National Party was talking about? Am I correct? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now National members are saying they will stick with it. But I thought the Hon Murray McCully was hinting that they might go the other way because he was saying there was a cost—but at the moment New Zealanders are prepared to bear that cost. 
New Zealand First supports this motion. There is reference to it among our 15 founding principles. In fact there is the statement: “New Zealanders’ desire for a non-nuclear future will be respected.” That has been in our 15 founding principles since the day this party started. We have never departed from that position over the past 14 years as I say since our inception and we remain committed to it today. 
There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealand people continue to endorse the view reflected in this legislation; they want New Zealand to remain nuclear-free. Fortunately our nuclear-free legislation is now being seen by the world for what it actually is. It was never an attempt to thumb our noses at the world but rather an opportunity to express a deeply held sentiment. It did mean that the Government of the time—and New Zealand as a whole—had to paddle its own canoe on the world stage. I thought that the Rt Hon David Lange at that time did a magnificent job. I will never forget that Oxford Union debate. It is impressed on my memory and I thought he represented his country exceedingly well. 
This is core legislation and it is about taking a step to a more idealistic world. New Zealand had the courage under Prime Minister Lange to take that step and to make it a reality. New Zealand First supports this motion and firmly supports New Zealand staying nuclear-free.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Mercury Energy—Disconnection of Electricity Supply 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Mercury Energy—Disconnection of Electricity Supply 
[Volume:639;Page:9741] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Sue Bradford seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by Mercury Energy. The disconnection is a particular case of recent occurrence and having been effected by or on behalf of a State-owned enterprise I accept that it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. The incident has been the subject of considerable public interest since it occurred and this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider it. I consider that it does warrant an urgent debate being held today. I therefore call on Sue Bradford to move that the House take note of the matter.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
[Volume:639;Page:9740] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Simon Power seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the Ombudsmen into prisoner transportation. The report was released when I tabled it in the House today even though it had been speculated in news media reports some days ago that the report was about to be released. In these circumstances as Speaker’s ruling 161/1 makes clear the application cannot be considered for an urgent debate today though if an application is lodged tomorrow it can be considered then. The application is accordingly declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
[Volume:639;Page:9740] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Simon Power seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the Ombudsmen into prisoner transportation. The report was released when I tabled it in the House today even though it had been speculated in news media reports some days ago that the report was about to be released. In these circumstances as Speaker’s ruling 161/1 makes clear the application cannot be considered for an urgent debate today though if an application is lodged tomorrow it can be considered then. The application is accordingly declined.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
[Volume:639;Page:9740] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noticed that the Government was somewhat interested in badges earlier in the afternoon and I notice that Parekura Horomia and Dave Hereora have their badges on upside down. Does that indicate the Labour Maori caucus feels some distress about this policy?
Points of Order — New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
Points of Order — New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
[Volume:639;Page:9740] 
Points of Order 
New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noticed that the Government was somewhat interested in badges earlier in the afternoon and I notice that Parekura Horomia and Dave Hereora have their badges on upside down. Does that indicate the Labour Maori caucus feels some distress about this policy?
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9738] 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on changes to screening for hearing loss in newborn children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I was pleased to see a report yesterday on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
on the success of the newborn hearing screening programme piloted at Waikato District Health Board. This is an exciting joint programme with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education working together to screen newborn babies’ hearing and where necessary to refer them early for specialist treatment including language and educational development. The programme is starting from 1 July in the Waikato District Health Board the Tairawhiti District Health Board and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and will be rolling out across the country over the next 3 years. 
Maryan Street 
: Assuming that newborn hearing screening will cause a surge in the need for cochlear implants for some children what arrangements has the Government made to meet that surge? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Last month’s Budget has $8 million set aside for additional cochlear implants not only to meet the surge for the children that the member refers to but also to increase adult implants. Getting an early diagnosis of deafness in a child really matters. We now know that providing profoundly deaf young children and newborns with a cochlear implant gives them the chance to hear speak and develop on a path very similar indeed to that of other children.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9735] 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she be meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he visits Parliament next Tuesday; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am advised that the Prime Minister’s programme for next week is under consideration. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister know that when a similar controversy blew up in Australia after Prime Minister John Howard said he would not meet the Dalai Lama the public outcry quickly convinced him to find a place in his diary; and why is it so hard to make room for the Dalai Lama in the Prime Minister’s itinerary? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member should check his sources again. That is a misreporting of what Mr Howard did. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that whether she meets with the Dalai Lama has not been the subject of representations from the Chinese embassy and if such representations have been made that the Prime Minister will make up her own mind and not do as the Chinese embassy tells her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that if any representations are made—and I would not be surprised if the Chinese embassy made representations on such a matter—the New Zealand Government will still make up its own mind about what it does. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Prime Minister assure us that in principle she is quite happy to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits here as a political leader of his people and discuss with him his proposals for a peaceful middle-way to give the Tibetan people their full rights within their part of China? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the Dalai Lama has himself stated that this visit is as a religious leader not as a political leader and indeed that he himself has said he is now in semi-retirement and that Tibet has elected political leaders to carry on the struggle of autonomy. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a section of the Amnesty International Report 2007 on China which describes the many Tibetans detained or imprisoned. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9729] 
5.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What will be the role of the Navy’s new multi-role vessel the HMNZS  
Canterbury 
 which is being commissioned today? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The  
Canterbury 
 is the first of seven new ships being commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy over the next year. That will give an unprecedented boost to the navy’s operational capabilities. The principal role of the  
Canterbury 
 is that of an amphibious sealift vessel and it will succeed in that whereas National’s efforts with the  
Charles Upham 
 the “ 
Chuck-Up 
” failed completely. It is able to deploy 250 troops 57 light armoured and operational vehicles stores and equipment in military and peacekeeping operations. But it also provides enormous capability in the areas of disaster relief and humanitarian support if and when needed in the Pacific in South-east Asia and for that matter in and around New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What special capabilities does the  
Canterbury  
have in terms of deployment and disaster relief? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think its special capabilities come into play in areas where there is no port access. It carries two 23-metre landing craft that can carry from ship directly to shore. In areas—for example in the Pacific—where there is a reef it has the capability in its hangars for four NH90 helicopters and a Seasprite helicopter. An NH90 for example can pick up a truck off the deck of a boat and deposit it on the land. Obviously those capabilities would have been incredibly valuable in the situation that pertained in post-tsunami Aceh and in disaster relief following periodic hurricanes around the Pacific. At the other end of the Pacific with an ice-strengthened hull the  
Canterbury  
will provide greatly enhanced capability for patrolling the Southern Ocean. 
Dianne Yates 
: What will be the role of the other six vessels that will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy over the next year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The other six ships consist of two 85 metre - long offshore patrol vessels and four 55 metre - long inshore patrol vessels. Their role will be in support of national security tasks particularly in conducting multi-agency operations. That will include for example border patrol working with the Customs Service and the police; control over our exclusive economic zone working closely with the Ministry of Fisheries; counterterrorism operations; and search and rescue. There is no doubt that the boost given to the Royal New Zealand Navy by the addition of these seven ships is the biggest enhancement of its capabilities in the history of the Royal New Zealand Navy.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9724] 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on alternative approaches to fiscal policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received one report that suggests that the Government should be loosening fiscal policy by borrowing more from overseas to fund tax cuts and infrastructure investment. I received another report that the Government should be tightening fiscal policy by cutting half a billion dollars from last month’s Budget. The first report was from National’s leader John Key. The second report was from National’s deputy leader Bill English. 
Shane Jones 
: What would be the impact of borrowing more to fund tax cuts and infrastructure investments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The extra stimulus from Mr Key’s suggestion of a borrow and hope policy would further underpin inflation and drive the currency higher. Mr Key’s plan even within that offset of half a billion dollars from Mr English would inject twice the annual effect of the increased Fonterra payout cited by the Reserve Bank last week as the major reason for lifting the official cash rate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that late last year he issued infrastructure bonds—which is borrowing money for infrastructure—and that the Budget shows he plans to borrow $4 million over the next 3 or 4 years; and is that going to be for health spending or education spending or for the Superannuation Fund or for student loans spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed—and I thank the member for drawing that to the attention of his leader who clearly was not aware that we were actually issuing infrastructure bonds. However of course the proposed additional borrowing of $2 billion a year over the next 4 years would significantly increase the debt to GDP ratio. Mr Key is quoted as saying that New Zealand is too lightly geared in that respect and that he favours higher debt. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister confident that the intervention yesterday by the Governor of the Reserve Bank can be sustained thus leading to a permanently lower dollar? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said outside this House—and I repeat it inside this House—I will not comment on the specific actions of the Reserve Bank in that regard. The Reserve Bank has operational independence and if I start a running commentary on what it does either in this respect or in terms of interest rates then that will obviously infringe upon that independence.
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table two copies of the code of conduct signed by the two ACT MPs—myself and Heather Roy. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Tabling of Documents 
Code of Conduct for MPs 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table six copies of the code of conduct for MPs which the MMP parties have collectively developed and that have been signed by the members of the Green Party. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the Standing Orders which are Parliament’s already accepted code of conduct. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table copies of the code of conduct that have been signed by the United Future members of Parliament. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the Maori Party to table three copies of the code of conduct for members of Parliament that have been signed by our three members. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table two copies of the code of conduct signed by the two ACT MPs—myself and Heather Roy. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the Maori Party to table three copies of the code of conduct for members of Parliament that have been signed by our three members. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the Standing Orders which are Parliament’s already accepted code of conduct. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table copies of the code of conduct that have been signed by the United Future members of Parliament. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for MPs 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table six copies of the code of conduct for MPs which the MMP parties have collectively developed and that have been signed by the members of the Green Party. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Televising of Parliament—Testing 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Televising of Parliament—Testing 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should be aware that the cameras in the debating chamber are operational to enable equipment to be tested and technical staff to be trained. Images obtained during the next 3-week trial period will not be transmitted however. Following a successful trial and training period this month we expect to begin this service in July when all proceedings of Parliament will be available to television networks to broadcast and webcast on Parliament’s website.
Speaker’s Statements — Televising of Parliament—Testing 
Speaker’s Statements — Televising of Parliament—Testing 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Televising of Parliament—Testing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should be aware that the cameras in the debating chamber are operational to enable equipment to be tested and technical staff to be trained. Images obtained during the next 3-week trial period will not be transmitted however. Following a successful trial and training period this month we expect to begin this service in July when all proceedings of Parliament will be available to television networks to broadcast and webcast on Parliament’s website.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 June 2007 of the Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO who represented the electorate of Manurewa from 1963 to 1975. He was Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975 and Minister of Island Affairs from 1972 to 1974. 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 his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
Obituaries — Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Tuesday 12 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 June 2007 of the Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO who represented the electorate of Manurewa from 1963 to 1975. He was Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975 and Minister of Island Affairs from 1972 to 1974. 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 his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Donnelly Brian: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7656] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I have been asked to take just a very short call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We do not have a member on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; however our caucus has looked very carefully at the provisions of the bill and the report by the select committee back to the House. I can say we are very happy with the bill as reported back and we will be supporting it through this stage. 
Bill read a second time.
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7656] 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: I move  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7656] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: I move  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — In Committee 
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7656] 
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Event: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — In Committee 
Event: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7656] 
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7645] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I will reply just briefly. The reason we are amending the legislation is that the Coroners Act 1988 expires on 30 June 2007 and this legislation could well come into force before that legislation expires. It will be replaced by the Coroners Act 2006 which will come into effect on 1 July. It is necessary to mention both pieces of legislation.
Carter John: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7644] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I feel compelled to take the opportunity to speak on this Judicial Retirement Age Bill. As previous speakers have said the National Party is supporting the bill. We are supporting it for a number of very good legal reasons and for reasons that are important to this Parliament and the country. But one of the things that is most important for this country which we need to recognise today in the House is that we need to keep institutional knowledge in areas such as the judiciary or within any other capacity. 
One of the sad things that has happened too often in this country is that people have been retired early and we have lost a whole lot of experience. The judiciary is no different from any other group in that regard. Those people are well skilled they are well versed and they have huge knowledge but then often as they are reaching the stage when they can make a very good contribution to our society— 
Ron Mark 
: Like MPs! 
JOHN CARTER 
: —I will come to that in a minute—we suddenly say to them that it is time they sat down and retired. 
I am pleased to say that the National Party values institutional knowledge. We respect it and we expect it of our members—although the same could not be said to apply to the Labour Party. It does not develop institutional knowledge. In fact one of the things Helen Clark has said is that she is expecting early retirement. I think she is now looking to have people come into Parliament at the Young Labour stage and retire before they get out of Young Labour. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Like Darren Hughes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Darren is a classic example. It is important that we— 
Ron Mark 
: Like Brian Neeson. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There is another example of a guy who made a great contribution and who stood aside for somebody who is now leading the National Party. We are pleased because that man will be the next Prime Minister. What is wrong with that? That is making way for people and it is a good decision. 
Today this bill is a very good decision. The institution of our judiciary is important. It is important that we retain the experience and the knowledge that these people have. I am pleased to make a contribution to support the bill and to pay my respects to the judiciary and to the many people who serve our country in that capacity. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:7641] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the House is in agreement I ask Mr Barnett to assume the Chair. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:7641] 
Business of the House 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the House is in agreement I ask Mr Barnett to assume the Chair. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7641] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a second time.
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family 
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family 
[Volume:637;Page:7638] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With due respect I noted that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith made reference to my wife not only today but on many other occasions. I want to point out— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order I am sorry. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: Well I thought there was a convention that states that reference to members’ spouses and families should not be raised on the floor of this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that if members want to raise such matters they must do it at the time the matter is first raised.
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family 
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family 
[Volume:637;Page:7638] 
Points of Order 
Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With due respect I noted that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith made reference to my wife not only today but on many other occasions. I want to point out— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order I am sorry. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: Well I thought there was a convention that states that reference to members’ spouses and families should not be raised on the floor of this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that if members want to raise such matters they must do it at the time the matter is first raised.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7638] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a photograph of me opening that Awapuni power plant on 15 September last year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7638] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand Press Association report on the station that was opened and reports it as a power station turning methane into power. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7638] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report explaining how the Hon Dr Nick Smith got it wrong in question No. 1 today. It shows that the Prime Minister opened a recycling centre at Awapuni not a power station as it was described by the member. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7637] 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many Zimbabweans as of 21 February 2007 have applied for residency under the Special Zimbabwe Residence Policy following the HIV/AIDS waiver announced on 30 August 2006 and how many of the remaining 800 who were eligible under the policy as at 30 August 2006 have yet to apply? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the original estimate of 800 has been subsequently refined to 460. Of those as at the first week of February 2007—the most recent point for which data is available—approximately 134 eligible persons had yet to apply. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister explain the discrepancy between his answer to a written question which stated that 85 of the 800 eligible Zimbabweans had applied as of 13 February 2007 and his media statement made on 15 February 2007 which stated that only 130 of the 800 had yet to apply—because now by downsizing the number he has added to the confusion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I will be happy to check the exact basis of the two figures that the member quoted earlier. But I think the member—and all members of the House—would agree with me that it is indeed a good thing for New Zealand that the number outstanding is reduced and that officers of the Department of Labour are checking on an individual basis with the 134 people who have yet to apply. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will seek the removal of all Zimbabweans who do not conform and apply for residency before 28 February? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government’s policy on this matter is clear: that any member of the community who fails to apply by the deadline date can have no guarantee of residence as those who applied before that date do under the policy.