edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Adams Paul: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4718] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill aims to strengthen the Fair Trading Act by making amendments to enforcement and procedural provisions and in particular as we have heard by creating a new additional penalty regime for pyramid-selling schemes based on commercial gain from the scheme. 
Specifically the bill doubles existing maximum fines under the Act—currently $30000 for an individual and $100000 for a company. They have been raised to $60000 for an individual and $200000 for a company. The bill also amends the definition of pyramid-selling schemes in the Act to take into account newer types of schemes. These schemes may involve participants buying or selling an investment opportunity and using an agent provided by the scheme operators to recruit other participants on their behalf instead of trying to recruit new participants themselves. 
The bill also extends the search powers of the Commerce Commission so that the commission may obtain a warrant to search for evidence to demonstrate the nature and extent of a breach of the Act revenue obtained through offending or other matters material to the seriousness of the breach. That will assist the commission in gathering evidence for courts to consider in sentencing. In particular it will help to implement the commercial gain penalty for pyramid-selling schemes. The bill also introduces a new power that will allow the Commerce Commission to issue notices requiring people to supply information or documents. This power will give the commission more flexibility and is most likely to be used when the commission seeks information from witnesses who are not hostile. 
The bill also amends the Fair Trading Act to provide that the criminal limitation period runs 3 years from the date a breach is discovered or ought reasonably to have been discovered. That is being done because in some markets such as building investment products insurance and long-term guarantees consumers or the Commerce Commission are unlikely to discover a breach until well after 3 years from the date the breach occurs. 
United Future sees this legislation as mainly technical in nature and does not believe it to be controversial. Therefore we are happy to support it going to the Committee stage.
Copeland Gordon: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12226] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on behalf of United Future to signal our support also for the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. It is a well-thought-out bill. I believe that it means that police and civilians serving overseas as in the Solomons will in respect of crimes committed in the course of their official duties be subject solely to New Zealand’s jurisdiction. We will have the exclusive jurisdiction over those people in that situation. That I think is a very common-sense safeguard so that we do not risk having our police and civilians in the Solomons and other places arrested by the locals whilst trying to exercise their official duties. In one sense it is just simply a question of saying that there has to be one line of authority for such people and that that line of authority has to be definitely connected through the operational framework back to this nation since they are our citizens and we have after all sent them into places like the Solomons to assist the locals and to bring peace to such nations. 
At the same time the bill makes it clear that if those people commit crimes when they are not on their official duties but are just in their time off—or rest and recreation—they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities. That to me also makes sense. 
We signal our support for this bill. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
Prebble Richard: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling. I am well aware of it. I am also aware that the House likes to give members the opportunity to make personal explanations and does not normally give an opportunity to explain something that was not said in the House. There are members here who do not listen to State radio so I have no idea what the member is referring to. If I had a bit of an idea what the subject was I could then decide whether the business of the House should be interrupted in order to correct things that appear on the “Morning Moan”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As objection has been taken we come to questions for oral answer.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Social Services Committee referred to the Social Services Committee 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9.
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11337] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on behalf of New Zealand First I suggest that the bill be termed the “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill”. I wish to focus upon the words “Transitional Change” because the bill picks up on a stage when we were accustomed to traditional energy sources—when hydro coal and gas energy and more recently thermal energy were more common. In the course of recent years we have moved to more serious and concentrated thinking upon the value of wind power; we have the example of say Genesis Energy’s biogeneration plant; we have modern gas turbine stations; and particularly more recently a greater amount of thinking is taking place about the possibilities of the fossil fuel coal being used again not in its traditional sense but in a transitional way. Therefore that is an appropriate name change for the bill. 
Surely it is a transitional change bill when one takes into account the fact that alongside this bill there is—I have perhaps laboured this point but I will labour it again—no national policy statement that gives legal guidance to those who administer the Act. Until that is there this bill surely must be an incomplete answer to the energy issues and therefore it truly is a transitional change. Only when this bill in its enacted form has a national policy statement to go with it will there be some real guidance to those who would wish to operate under the bill. That includes not just councils but also those who make applications. 
I suggest that that will be even more so because with regard to this particular bill in its final form there is no established body of law. Therefore there will be uncertainty and inconsistency as to how this legislation will be applied. I strongly suggest to the Minister in the chair that until the requirements of a national policy statement are there this bill might jeopardise the ability of the Government to give effect to its energy policy. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we do not find this title helpful—particularly in 2004—with regard to the whole nature of this bill which is incomplete and transitional. We suggest that the title “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill” would be a far better title and would more completely encompass the bill’s premature stage of development.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3475] 
3.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress has the Government made in extending opportunities for learning in the workplace? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The Government has continued to support and invest in growth in industry training and Modern Apprenticeships in particular. There were 106997 trainees registered with industry training organisations during 2002. That is a 12 percent increase on the same time last year. There were 47 percent more trainees registered as at 31 December 2002 than there were when we became the Government in December 1999. Those figures include 4344 Modern Apprenticeships—a 14 percent increase over the 3-month period from 30 September and a 112 percent increase on the previous year.  
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Government have a vision for the future development of workplace learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we do. The vision is set out clearly in New Zealand’s first-ever tertiary education strategy which states that by 2007 the benefits of learning in the workplace will be extended to employees in as many industries as is possible. That will be done through the tripartite skills initiative between the Government the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. There will be a quarter of a million people in training during 2007. By June 2006 there will be 7500 young people in Modern Apprenticeships and that will help to ensure that all young people who leave school in the year 2007 will go on to education training and work. By contrast according to the National Party’s spokesperson Simon Power National has no industry training policy at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was all in order until the last sentence. 
Simon Power 
: Where is the equity when some employers such as those involved in the trades can be levied for the cost of training their staff by a vote of only 36 percent of their industry while other employers such as lawyers accountants and doctors still have their employees trained at no cost to them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The basis of industry training is that it is a partnership between the Government the employer and the learner and therefore we share the costs. I say to the member whom I noticed in a newsletter for an industry training organisation states we have no policy that if he had been visiting those organisations they would have told him they wanted this form of levy.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 3 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10998] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to write to me about the matter he is entitled to do so and he can. But as far as I am concerned the point of order went last week when I ruled that I accepted the member’s word.
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9007] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I call the honourable member Pita Paraone.
Franks Stephen: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Franks Stephen: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While you are reflecting on this over the weekend I ask that you consider a matter that was raised 2 or 3 weeks ago and that is the possibility that where members are in effect urging you to require that a question be answered and where you judge that the question may have been evaded or that there is reason for Opposition concern you might indicate that another question will be allowed. It would be a help to us. You have indicated the possibility at times but we do not know when you might grant another question. If you were to indicate that another question will be allowed then it would be easier for us to accept that the Chair does not have the capacity to force an answer out of the Minister.
Wong Pansy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14326] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like to continue the theme of the articulate National finance spokesperson John Key who is very well respected in the business and economic sectors. He raised a very good point about whether the Labour Government understands business and whether the New Zealand public can trust the Labour Government to manage New Zealand’s economic direction. I want to use a very tidy example one of the Labour Government’s economic initiatives to demonstrate what typifies Labour’s approach to business activities. Firstly Labour is ignorant of what makes business tick; secondly it believes in throwing money away just to make itself feel good; and thirdly it has very little respect for how it uses taxpayers’ money. 
I want to use the example of the Export Credit Office which was opened with fanfare and was trumpeted by the then Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Pete Hodgson. He said in 2001 that the export credit scheme was part of the Government’s drive to improve export growth. The Government reckoned that the scheme started with good research and consultation and that it was the solution for New Zealand’s small exporters. He predicted that as soon as the office opened up for business small exporters would be queuing to take up this credit insurance. The Government was so confident about it that Cabinet was told that the Export Credit Office would recover its costs and would not cost taxpayers a cent that it would not compete with commercial providers—that was written into its contract—and that the scheme would operate for New Zealand’s small and medium-sized enterprises. 
After the scheme had operated for 12 months research was conducted to find out why none of the small exporters had taken up the offer from the Export Credit Office. The report told us that in hindsight when the Export Credit Office was set up the extent and significance of the gaps why small exporters were not able to export to foreign markets had not been quantified. So the Labour Government as usual had charged into unknown territory and claimed it had a solution. Over $1 million was used to set up the office and almost $1 million was spent every successive year to prop up that office without in effect any understanding of the problems facing small exporters in increasing their business. 
So in the review of the finance estimates that was conducted recently I once again raised this issue with the Minister of Finance and asked how many export contracts that office—$3 million and 3 years later—had actually signed. 
John Key 
: How many? 
PANSY WONG 
: The answer was zilch—none. Then the Minister—and I think this is a very worrying thing which I want to share with the public—said that although the office had not signed up any contracts he reckoned that $3 million was a small price to pay in order to have the Export Credit Office which provides some underpinning of confidence for small exporters. So the Labour Government was very generous with the taxpayers’ money spending $1 million a year to give exporters some confidence.
Tamihere John: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tamihere John: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14078] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Meat Board Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7536] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18574] 
A party vote 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:18971] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting that the Minister to whom my question is directed is absent from the House today and that this is the second time recently on which this has occurred and in the hope of avoiding any impression amongst the public that he is avoiding answering my questions I seek leave to postpone this question until the Minister is present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Hawkins George: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19791] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be referred to the Law and Order Committee 
.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13843] 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What progress has been made in ensuring that the new Families Commission will be up and running this year as she indicated in the Prime Minister’s statement in February 2004? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Good progress. Today I announced the appointments of the six commissioners for the Families Commission. They are Chief Families Commissioner Dr Rajen Prasad and his deputy Sharron Cole. Other commissioners are Professor Mason Durie Sandra Alofivae former human rights commissioner Carolynn Bull and long-time family advocate Lyn Campbell. The commissioners will bring a good variety of skills to their roles and we look forward to them starting their work on 1 July. I also thank United Future for its strong support and advocacy for the proposal. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that these commissioners are all well suited to the job not only because of the record they have of working on family issues in a professional capacity but also because of their own backgrounds reflecting those of middle New Zealand families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree that the commissioners are all well suited to the job and bring a variety of family advocacy and governance skills to their roles. Dr Prasad for example who has been appointed the Chief Families Commissioner has excellent credentials across a wide range of areas and I think he and the fellow commissioners will form a very good team. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the Families Commission recognise civil unions in the same way that it recognises marriage; and has the United Future party indicated that it thinks the Civil Unions Bill will achieve the opposite of what it intended with the Families Commission? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is not relevant but the first part can be answered. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Families Commission has not yet formally begun its work it has not been able to form a view on such issues. What the chiefcommissioner said today was that the commission believes that families will define themselves by the fact that they care for children care for older people and care and nurture each other. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the work of the commissioners will focus on the needs of all New Zealand families not just those who could be considered at risk? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most definitely. The commission will advocate for all our families—whatever their make-up—recognising that the family as an institution faces complex pressures in the 21st century.
Peck Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Peck Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16745] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I want to tell that member that after another 20 years in Opposition he might be able to revisit this matter. It is a good bill and I support it.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5312] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise with you an issue that occurred during question time. Three times today you had to ask the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy to withdraw implications in their questions. You did so as a consequence of points of order that we had to raise. Points of order in themselves can be disorderly. I wonder whether you might consider instead of our having to raise points of order on those issues intervening on our behalf and asking for those implications to be withdrawn on the occasions that they occur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that is the case it applies to everybody but that is a very valuable suggestion.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20204] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19166] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In the name of Paul Hutchison I seek leave for the debate to be held. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the debate to be held. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is declined.
Duncan Helen: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3517] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. I have glanced through some headlines from the past year and they say things such as: “Interest free deals with strings confuse customers”; “Credit law rip offs”; and “Loan sharks find easy prey”. I am sure all of us are aware of the number of stories that appear all the time in the news media about unscrupulous people ripping off consumers.  
In respect of concerns about the fact that the finance rate is not in the disclosure I point out that this bill provides not just for initial disclosure but also for continuing disclosure throughout the term of the contract and that the date amount and a description of each fee or charge debited to the debtor’s account during the statement period must be made right through the term of the contract. I think that those people who take the trouble to read the bill and consider the clauses very carefully will realise that there is a lot of protection here for the consumers of New Zealand that will make life much better for them. I commend the bill to the House.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6474] 
6.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Why did she recommend that eight companies be placed in statutory management last Friday? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The eight companies were placed in statutory management following the advice and recommendation of the Securities Commission that the companies may have been acting fraudulently or recklessly and it was necessary to protect the interest of creditors including the families who had entered into the so-called buy-back schemes. These schemes are fundamentally flawed because they involve the transfer of title to the property to one of the companies involved in the scheme and it would appear that lawyers provided advice on both sides of the transaction without informed consent. This is a recipe for disaster and the Government had to act. 
Dave Hereora 
: Are the problems associated with housing buy-back schemes limited to those companies placed into statutory management on Friday; if not what steps should consumers take if they have concerns? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. It appears that a number of other companies have been operating these housing buy-back schemes or a variation on them. Both I and the Minister of Consumer Affairs are warning people not to enter into any scheme that involves the transfer of the title of their property to anyone else. A toll-free number has been established today—0508 Housing Buy Back 0508 468 732. 
Murray Smith 
: What does the Government hope to achieve by putting these eight companies into statutory management? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Statutory management may help to identify what has happened to moneys raised by the companies involved and also provides some breathing space for the families who sadly remain at risk of losing their homes. The advantage of statutory management in this case is that certain companies were put into voluntary liquidation earlier last week. The costs associated with receivership would have reduced the funds available for distribution. Under statutory management the costs are met by the Government.
Benson-Pope David: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Benson-Pope David: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10779] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November  Question No. 6 to Minister 18 November National Party Leadership—Special Debate 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November  Question No. 6 to Minister 18 November National Party Leadership—Special Debate 
[Volume:613;Page:10137] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
Having concluded that point of order you will have realised by now that from the start to the finish it never was a point of order. It was a blatant political effort made by a member whose party denied my colleague the right to give him the information yesterday. If he wants to behave in that petulant fashion then you should not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have finished and do not have to hear the member any further. The member is perfectly correct in what he says. Any member of course can seek to table a document—I have found that out; it has been drawn to my attention. If the member wants to seek leave to table it that is his business and his business alone.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10000] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that and that is an interesting point. By leave the Committee could do that but that is a matter for the Committee not for me. Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure and I cannot review them.
Smith Nick: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11109] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 If as the Minister and member for Wellington says this bill is the great saviour for Wellington I am somewhat depressed for the future of Wellington—and they obviously need a new member of Parliament. This is actually a very boring minor bill. National will support it but let us be clear about it—if this is the boldest legislation that Marian Hobbs can bring through this House then it will be a disappointing political epitaph that she leaves. All we are doing with this bill is letting the Wellington City Council control its own assets and land and National will support it for that reason. 
We say that the Wellington City Council bought and paid for this land it was originally purchased for road-widening purposes it is not needed for road-widening purposes and we believe that the Wellington City Council should be able to sell it. It is pretty straightforward and simple. It will not save Wellington City; it will not shake great excitement around the traps. We would probably ask why we even need legislation of this sort. I remember when this House debated the Local Government Act. That was the great Act of Parliament from Labour that would provide councils with the power of general competence so that we would not need little bills like this—yet we still do. 
From a principle point of view the Wellington City Council is elected to manage the assets of the Wellington City area. We do not have a view about whether it should or should not be sold; that is for the elected representatives of the Wellington City Council to determine but we do not believe that we should impose these sorts of restrictions. I do find it interesting that in that same Local Government Act we had members opposite wanting to put all sorts of restrictions on councils around New Zealand about what they could and could not sell—talked and preached principles of general competence but practice was quite different. We on this side are quite consistent. We say that if the local council owns an asset it is an issue for those local representatives to determine what should be the future of that land. That is why we support this minor legislation that gives them the power to do so and why we are happy to facilitate the passage of the legislation as quickly as possible.
Vote: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
Vote: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9967] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Turner Judy: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19262] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a moment to greet the kaumatua and iwi representatives present in the gallery. I apologise for not being able to greet them in their own tongue. However let me state that as a long-term resident of Whakatane I am particularly thrilled to be here speaking for United Future on the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa is a legal entity already. It was established in 1988 to facilitate settlement negotiations with the Crown in relation to Ngati Awa’s historical treaty claims. A condition of the settlement is that Ngati Awa establish a governance entity to receive and administer redress. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa as presently constituted as a Maori trust board is not regarded as a suitable entity to undertake this function. However I would like to congratulate Ngati Awa. I recognise that the work they have done to date and the cooperation they have enjoyed amongst themselves means that this bill is passing today. 
The negotiations that have resulted in an agreement as to the nature of the governance entity that this bill gives effect to received 88.9 percent support from those eligible voters who chose to do so. It will reconstitute Te Runanga o Ngati Awa which will cease to be a Maori trust board under the 1955 Act. Instead it will be a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under this bill and the runanga charter. 
I noted that the Minister sponsoring and supporting this bill said that there was a high level of beneficiary registration that there was no opposition to the proposals that were actively voiced during the process and that there was a high level of support for the proposal. Therefore not wanting to waste any more of the iwi’s time I congratulate Ngati Awa on managing the settlement process successfully thus far and in supporting the third reading we hope to demonstrate our confidence in this governance structure.
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18607] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Shane Ardern who is the thinking National Party MP. I want to take up with him several of the issues he raised. He talked in his speech about the abuse of power by the executive. I would have thought the fact that Parliament is debating this legislation shows parliamentary power. This is not about the abuse of power by the executive. This bill will proceed only if 61 or more MPs vote for it. That is parliamentary power. It is not executive power. The member should get his terms correct. 
Secondly he said that the Government is abusing the Westminster system. We are using the Westminster system. I say to the National Party that it should take some of its back-bench MPs and introduce them to a training session. This is all about using the Westminster system. Mr Ardern went on to argue that this bill represents taxation without representation. The fact that he has come to this Chamber from Taranaki and is representing the views of his constituents is representation about taxation. I say to the member that he should be in touch with the constituents in his area because they want better roads. 
Darren Hughes 
: Jim Bolger understood that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Jim Bolger understood that and as I have been through the Taranaki area I can see why there is a great need for improvement on the roads. We cannot improve the roads on the current level of funding. I tell the member to have faith and to be a believer. This Government says that with an extra 5c per litre on petrol it will make significant improvement in roads in Auckland Hawke’s Bay and Taranaki. That member should have faith and be a believer. 
I say to members that this is a very simple part. It has two clauses. The essence of it is simply to make it clear that there will be a 5c per litre increase in the rate of excise duty and that there will be some changes to the schedules. This part is the guts of the legislation; it is where the amount goes up. There should not be too much debate about that because every member wants to see improvements in the roads in the area he or she represents. If we want roads improved then we have to put money into them and this is the means of doing that. I look forward to the support of the member for Taranaki - King Country.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5606] 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister—and I have had requests from a number of Ministers to see whether the Opposition could ask these questions about them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in the Minister of Justice when in answer to questions in the House last week about the rise in immigrant crime he emphatically denied that the Government’s immigration policy is clearly contributing significantly to the crime of this country when we have seen in this country— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —it is hardly a laughing matter—a 760 percent increase in reported kidnappings by Asians in the last 3 years in Auckland City alone; how can she have confidence in a Minister who disowns those facts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Minister that Asians have about half the proportion of offending of any other group. I think that to blame new New Zealanders for a crime wave is absolutely ridiculous. What the figures out this week show is that there is not a crime wave. 
Richard Worth 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Justice when we heard last week in answer to a question on the loophole that had been discovered in the home detention scheme that there were a number of persons convicted of rape kidnapping and aggravated robbery who were roaming the streets until the courts decided whether they would get home detention? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister has written to all parties asking for their support for a speedy amendment to enable judges to be required to impose conditions so that people cannot be roaming around if they are considered a problem. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has she asked the Minister of Justice for an explanation of why the 2001 victimisation survey report was released a year late without any explanation or excuse with no comparison with international victimisation surveys; if so what was the explanation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea whether it was released a year late or 5 years early. The member should ask the Minister that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen a letter in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 by Steve Lamb of Auckland who is complaining about Asian theft fraud fighting assault intimidation vehicle crashes disorder domestic stabbings and a sideline of extortion and weapon carrying and further states: “No doubt if I was in Parliament’s debating chamber my comments would be strongly denied by those in power. I suggest they come to Auckland”—[ 
Interruption 
] Well what does the member know about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question already is long enough. If he has more to come then it had better be the very last part of the half sentence.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9016] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 3(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) all the words after the words “a new court of final appeal”.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but I could not quite comprehend what you just said. Could you run that by us again please for my benefit? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not have it with me but there is a ruling from the Clerk’s Office that where the majority is known and in this case with the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry. It is for the Chair to make an interpretation of the votes I am advised. In this case— 
Stephen Franks 
: The vote was clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member on my right the Minister—she is an honourable member and I accept her word—has said that she called “No”.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
[Volume:615;Page:11418] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins in the sentiments that have been expressed by others and congratulates Peter Jackson and everyone associated with  
The Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy on their outstanding success at the Academy Awards yesterday. We also pay a special tribute to Keisha Castle-Hughes for the quiet dignity she showed throughout a remarkable time particularly the last tumultuous week. For anyone who doubted the capacity of our young people to foot it in today’s world she proved to be an absolute role model for how well adjusted our young people are and I congratulate her on that. The final observation I would make is that at a time when many New Zealanders feel set one against the other it is gratifying to think that on this issue at least we all come together as one celebrate achievements celebrate the richness of our nation and wish it all the best for the future. They have done us extremely proud. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16670] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 26 
Adams  
Copeland   
Mark  
Smith M 
Awatere Huata  
Duynhoven(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N 
Baldock  
English(P) 
Ogilvy  
Turia(P) 
Brown(P) 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turner  
Carter J (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Perry(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Jones  
Peters W (P) 
Collins  
Noes 94 
Alexander(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Locke  
Scott  
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Mackey M 
Simich(P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mahuta 
Sowry  
Benson-Pope   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Franks(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
McCully(P) 
Swain(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
Newman  
Tamihere(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker  
Tisch  
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Peck(P) 
Tizard  
Chadwick   
Hereora  
Pettis(P) 
Turei 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide  
Pillay  
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Power(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cullen 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui  
Woolerton(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hutchison   
Robertson(P) 
Worth (P) 
Dalziel  
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Yates 
Donald(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King  
Ryall(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes
Carter David: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4265] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 It seems tonight that the Government has finally realised who the people are who create the real wealth in New Zealand. Having just dealt with a bill that will dramatically change the Wool Board we now move to another bill that has been sitting around for some time—the Wine Makers Amendment Bill. I say at the outset that this is one of those strange pieces of legislation that New Zealand has little choice but to enact if we want to continue sending our superb wines to Europe. That just goes to show the sorts of constraints we are up against in exporting our produce. We have to be prepared to meet the rules and regulations imposed on us by other countries. 
The history of this amendment bill is intriguing in the sense that it was presented to the Primary Production Committee as part of a far wider bill. Because of the requirements at that stage to pass it we thought by the beginning of this calendar year Part 5 was split off and handled very rapidly but with the support of the wine industry. I know that our senior whip Mr Carter is working to make sure that this legislation is passed with alacrity. He realises its importance and on this occasion the National caucus is only too happy to cooperate with the Government and see this legislation passed as quickly as possible. That will allow our superb produce to continue to be marketed throughout the world and doing something great for “New Zealand Incorporated”.
Turner Judy: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8714] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost as a consequence of the Government’s breach of Standing Order 38 to be set aside for Tuesday 3 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11407] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This debate has been characterised like all debates I have heard in this House on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol by an ostrich-like determination to ignore the evidence for human-induced climate change. A couple of years ago it took the form of denial that the climate was in fact in any way changing. That is no longer tenable and most New Zealanders can see for themselves that climate variability has increased. So these days the argument is: yes climate is changing but human activities have no influence on that change and therefore there is nothing that we ought to do about it. Well 10 years ago now the Governments of the world got together to find the best scientific minds in climatology and form an inter-Governmental organisation to pursue exhaustively the science of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains the best minds of the scientific community around the world—some thousands of them and they have been working for a decade. But those who want us to do nothing will not accept the findings of this august panel and they want to look elsewhere.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8845] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 102 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.