edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14768] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 As David Carter rightly pointed out the catalyst for the rewrite of the Building Act was the leaky homes problem. We had a rather extensive inquiry into that and we highlighted a large number of issues that were desperately needed to try to alleviate the problem of additional people becoming caught by leaky homes. Sadly Mr Carter who was not on the Government Administration Committee has basically rubbished all of those people— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: I thought he was. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: No he definitely was not on the committee he did not take part in the inquiry nor was he part of the committee that looked into the rewrite of this Building Bill. Therefore he was just blowing hot air when he said that this would not solve any problems for people in the future. He obviously does not care whether people in the future have a leaky home. He would rather see those people who have bought a leaky home now be able to flick it on later and hide it under the carpet. 
It is sad that he has taken that approach because this bill has tried to sort out the leaky homes problem. Maybe we will not get it right this first time but we have gone a long way to ensure that there are not tens of thousands more people who will have leaky homes built for them in the future. Just the threat of this bill coming through Parliament has meant that the territorial authorities have tightened up on their requirements for buildings and therefore the bill has already achieved a great deal. 
We see further expansion in this bill on a number of issues and I will talk about those later on. One of the issues that I would like to pick up on is the one that Lindsay Tisch mentioned to do with stopbanks. Although it was discussed during the select committee we did not believe that the stopbanks should have been in there and I think that was a mistake. We have just seen some major issues with stopbanks giving way both in the Manawatu and in the Bay of Plenty. In both cases stopbanks gave way and in the case of the one in the Bay of Plenty it was a dam. A lot of work has been done on it and under this bill the servicing of that dam will now be required and the local territorial authorities along with the dam examination team will be looking at different ways of ensuring that existing dams are up to standard—once again an issue that this bill is addressing and will address further in the future because of the way it is structured. 
It is a case where the bill has set a goal to try to prevent more leaky homes and also look at ways of preventing structures like dams giving way. I believe that the stopbanks should have been part of those structures. The immediate area around the dam is part of that but beyond the dam and the immediate area those stopbanks should have been looked at and considered more deeply in this bill. I look forward to bringing up some of those issues later on.
Peck Mark: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4858] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13740] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after the word “has” and inserting the following: “no confidence in the Labour led minority Government because despite there being some positive initiatives in the Budget its continued failure to take adequate measures to protect New Zealand from the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health our environment and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks.” 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Hawkins George: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4634] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: 
 I move  
That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report on the bill by 31 July 2003. 
 referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:627;Page:21739] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following consultation with the whips of all parties I seek leave for the Standing Orders Committee to meet at 6 p.m. this evening. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12808] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened very carefully to your ruling. You have identified the relevant categories but the problem we have is that none of those categories are relevant. I invite you to indicate the relevant category. I am not aware of any invitation—and that seems to be the subject of the two most relevant categories—issued by the Minister. Who is the Minister? I am seeking that these invitations be tabled or that an undertaking be given that these invitations— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am being interrupted by that person again. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. I am hearing the member now and can I just— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member sat down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. I am prepared to hear out the member but I am also indicating that I intend to call the Minister involved in this particular issue with regard to the officials sitting to my right. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: You have read from the Speaker’s ruling Mr Assistant Speaker. You have identified a series of categories. I am saying that none of those categories is relevant because it seemed to me as you read it out quite quickly the key categories involved the issue of invitations. I am not aware that these strangers have relevant invitations. Of course they may produce their invitations. I do not know.
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8419] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but I did not think that Mr Gosche had gone that far. I know he mentioned the Ku Klux Klan in reference to some things he was talking about but I did not think that he went as far as to directly refer to any members of this House. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I will finally finish this speech by going back to that hospital and those wards I was in where not only did I see a lot of migrants working there as nurses doctors and other medical professionals but also I saw the migrants of 20 or 30 years ago—my family my aiga my people from the Pacific. Once again we are seeing the type of vitriol and hatred that the Pacific people had to endure 20 or 30 years ago but now there is a new target. That is the target that the New Zealand First Party has chosen to build its support base on. That is the sort of politics that might attract a few people in this country. Thankfully the vast majority of New Zealanders reject it. I want the media of this country to report the entire speech of the Rt Hon Winston Peters because it is the filthiest most racist speech I have heard in this House in my time.
Burton Mark: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15494] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to this debate and I would have to say that it is one of those times in Parliament when it is quite refreshing to listen to a debate where every contribution is measured and where a considered response is given to what I acknowledge to Mr Donald is a genuine and sincere attempt to introduce a measure that is consistent with what he has long pursued in terms of electoral reform. But I have to say that I and members on this side of the House—and indeed as we have heard members from around the House—are not convinced that this is the right tool for the job in question. In the end with all legislation we have to ask ourselves what the ill is that we are trying to remedy. Frankly as members have systematically said around the House we are not convinced that there is an ill to remedy with this legislation. So I commend the member for his intent and for his attempt. It is always good to have a go and pursue those things that one comes here to pursue but I think on this occasion it is fair to say the Government remains firm in its view that this measure is not required and would not assist the good governance of our schools.
Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Roy Heather: 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] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am the ACT health spokesperson and I sat on the Health Committee hearing this bill. I have been here for over an hour now trying to get the call on Part 3. In fact I was here for the end of Part 2 as well and sought the call then. I have not had one single call tonight on this bill and I think that as ACT’s health spokesperson I should have been given the opportunity to take a call this evening.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4390] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House that at the conclusion of the second reading of this bill we move directly to the third reading and that the question on the third reading be put without debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Objectionable Publication—Report by Chief Censor 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Objectionable Publication—Report by Chief Censor 
[Volume:625;Page:20355] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Because one Jim Peron has some supporters inside and outside this House I seek leave to table the report from the chief censor today which sets out that  
Unbound 
 the publication by Jim Peron is objectionable because it promotes the exploitation of children and young people for sexual purposes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5071] 
The question was put that the 
following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to new clause 28C(4) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to omit from new clause 28C(4) the words “principal function” and substitute the words “functions set out in section 8”.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4272] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. We will be moving to a new type of judiciary where the Government wants to appoint the whole of our new Court of Appeal. It is a matter of great interest to members of Parliament. So we have a perfectly respectable question put down to the Minister asking what is a court record. There is no public record of attendance by lawyers. Maybe the Attorney-General because she herself does not have much court experience does not know that. But where else can we raise it but here? The only power that MPs really have is the ability to question the executive but if the executive gives answers that are nonsense what is the point of our having written questions at all? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are two points. Firstly we do have a weekly general debate where members can debate replies. That was how that debate originally came about. Secondly I shall look at the point the member has raised and I will come back to the House.
Mark Ron: General Debates 
Mark Ron: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15250] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the outburst from the Minister of State Services permissible? In reference to figures on crime he yelled out across the House that crime is down because Ron Mark was out of the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I try not to interrupt the debate and I try not to call attention to comments being made. Now that the member has mentioned the comment it will of course appear in  
Hansard 
—it would not have. The comment having been made I thought it was an inappropriate one but it was not actually out of order. I thought it was a passing comment made across the House by way of interjection. His own leader has made many more-effective ones.
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9025] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I hear what the Minister is saying. However when we did the Gambling Bill the Minister’s amendments were taken first. A number of amendments I proposed were ruled out because they were overtaken by the Minister’s amendment and Standing Order 301 states quite clearly that the amendments put forward by the Minister in charge of the bill are taken ahead of other amendments. So what we are seeing here is that members’ amendments have been put and the Minister’s amendments have been put at the end which is in contradiction to the way we handled the Gambling Bill.
Worth Richard: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11905] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Business Law Reform Bill and in the dying minutes that this House continues in session I look forward to the opportunity of presenting the arguments that I will develop at a later stage. I understand that National’s plan is for Pansy Wong to speak after me which will certainly be a cameo moment for members of the House as they hear her insightful comments on the bill. In what time there is remaining I will focus on one aspect of the purpose of the bill that maybe has not been sufficiently dealt with and that is the aspect of removing unnecessary compliance costs. I believe that this Government pays only lip service to that very important aspect. 
One of the constants in the economy for much of New Zealand is the importance of small to medium sized enterprises—or SMEs as they are called. They are commonly defined as businesses employing 19 or fewer employees and they represent about 97 percent of all New Zealand companies. They employ 43 percent of all employees and produce 39 percent of all the goods and services. It is true to say that they are more than just the backbone of the economy; they are a large part of the skeleton and the musculature as well. It is in all of our interests that these businesses grow—if not in size then in productivity and profitability. 
So it is that the amendments proposed by the Business Law Reform Bill have as their purpose the removal of unnecessary compliance costs. The record of this Government in dealing with compliance costs can best be described as lamentable. I say “lamentable” because a number of initiatives have been pursued with no vigour and no common sense. 
Debate interrupted.
Tanczos Nandor: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20559] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to waste the House’s time but as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I do feel I have something to add and it is a slightly different point. It is clear that minority reports are an extremely important part of select committee commentaries. They provide an alternative view to the majority view and it seems to me to be quite justified that a party supporting a bill may well have a valid reason for putting forward a minority view on specific issues in the bill that they disagree with or would seek to have amended. 
However I agree with Mr Power that it is not appropriate for a party that supports a bill to put in a minority report stating it does not really agree with it but will vote for it anyway. If that party were to mention specific points it was seeking to amend I would think that that was quite a different matter and that we should allow for that but I think Mr Power has a very good point.
Locke Keith: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
Locke Keith: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
[Volume:621;Page:16595] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with other parties in sending President Bush congratulations on winning the election but it is also with a sense—and I think in this I am expressing the views of the majority of New Zealand people and of a significant majority of the people of the world—of sadness at the fact that Mr Bush was re-elected because unfortunately— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do have free speech in this Parliament. People are entitled to have their view heard even if others do not agree with it. I will uphold that. I ask the member to be brief.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought that the purpose of a motion without debate was such that those who agreed with the person moving it could perhaps make a comment. But if one is in violent disagreement then how can that be in accord with the non-debatable objective even though we have been given some leniency at this time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am asking Mr Locke to come to the end of his comments because he did say at the start that he was going to support the motion. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes the Green Party is supporting the motion and as with other debates of this kind we are allowed to put it in the right context. I think that the House should take note of the polls that have been conducted around the world in addition to the polls in the United States where overwhelmingly—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the member’s last sentence. Would he please finish it. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Overwhelmingly the people of the world have expressed their opposition to George Bush’s re-election. [ 
Interruption 
] Could I finish? As I was saying overwhelmingly the people of the world have expressed their opinion against George Bush being re-elected because they do not want a continuation of the wars of aggression such as the one we have seen in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism which is undermining our civil liberties—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say one thing. This is a democracy too and people have the right of free speech. I am going to uphold that. I thought the comments that were made were unnecessary. Of course Mr Locke has a different point of view from that of other parties. He is entitled to that; that is what democracy is all about. That is what we have just witnessed in the United States where there was a free choice.
Robertson H V Ross: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11263] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clause 3A is ruled out of order as it is not within the scope of the bill.
Hartley Ann: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hartley Ann: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:608;Page:5289] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is suspended from the service of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I call the Serjeant-at-Arms. The member will please leave the House. The member has been suspended; it has been voted on. Would the member please leave the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The vote was being put on the third reading before 6 o’clock. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It was not put. The  
Hansard 
 will show that it was not put. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have been advised that I have to finish the vote.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12739] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a suggestion that I think may help you and the House. The respected Maori member Mita Ririnui graciously gave up his speaking slot in deference to his colleague Tariana Turia who had previously been denied a slot. I suggest that we hear from Mita Ririnui also—he would have prepared a speech; this is an important debate—and that both the National and New Zealand First members in terms of the third slot be given a full speech. That meets your dilemma as well as recognising the gracious offer that Mita Ririnui made to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that suggestion but what I am saying is that if there were 5-minute speeches given to Mr Ririnui— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Speaker you have not understood the proposal that has been put to you. No doubt the National member and the New Zealand First member have prepared 10-minute speeches and I am sure the Labour member has too. We are proposing that there be three speeches all of 10 minutes—one for the Labour Party one for the National Party and one for New Zealand First. In fact I ask for leave for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Ririnui was asking for only 5 minutes anyway. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. I will therefore put my proposal that I offer 5 minutes to New Zealand First and 5 minutes to National. Does anyone object? No.
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18833] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members should note that this part includes debate on schedules 3 to 15.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17428] 
6.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What recent reports has he received on the implementation of the Government’s Modern Apprenticeships programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Today I am able to announce that the updated figures on the Modern Apprenticeships programme mean we have reached a milestone of 7000 Modern Apprentices. In September 2004 there were 7088 Modern Apprentices 500 more than our original target. That is an increase of 20 percent in the last year. Two industries—building and construction and engineering—have reached the milestone of 1000 apprentices in place each and I compliment those industries. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm whether women and Maori and Pasifika peoples are well represented in the Modern Apprenticeships programme; if not what steps is the Government taking to improve their under-representation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. Of the new apprentices 14.3 percent are Maori and there are now just over a thousand young Maori in the programme. Pacific Islanders’ enrolment in the Modern Apprenticeships programme has increased dramatically in the last quarter of last year and there has been a 30 percent increase in the enrolment of women in the last year. In addition there are three projects to be announced by the Tertiary Education Commission in the immediate future to address areas of under-representation in the Modern Apprenticeships programme in order to make sure everyone gets a fair share in that fantastic programme.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(l)ensure the delivery of services at a cost competitive to equivalent tendered services.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17686] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13285] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17572] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is not right. We made it quite clear. You were about to say something and we knew the rule. Mr Prebble raised a point of order before you declared the vote. It was very very clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is exactly what I am saying. I am dealing with other votes. I am not sure which ones Mr Prebble is referring to. This vote has not been declared. Because of that I intend to ask the tellers to come back and look at their lists for this particular vote and ask whether there are any other members present who wish to have their votes counted. It has been my understanding that up till now the proper course has been followed and I trust the whips completely. But in respect of this vote—
Jones Dail: Appointments — Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
Jones Dail: Appointments — Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
[Volume:625;Page:20187] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposed the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and we still do not support its principles. We have made it clear that on a change of Government involving New Zealand First this Act ought to be reviewed. However the Act is the law and it must be given effect to in one way or another. The appointment of Ian Leslie Haynes as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has the support of New Zealand First although whether the appointment will be for a term of 5 years remains to be decided after the outcome of the next election. Mr Ian Leslie Haynes is highly regarded amongst all members of the legal profession and I would say in the wider community as well and he has the support of New Zealand First in this position.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15206] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I say again to the senior Government whip that she should consider herself reprimanded and I would appreciate it if she apologised to the House. 
Jill Pettis 
: I do most sincerely apologise.
Shirley Ken: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Shirley Ken: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I heard you correctly you indicated to the House that the Green Party is now the third-largest party in Parliament. I do not believe that is so.
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12415] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Madam Chair thank you for your generosity. When you were good enough to call me on Part 1 before I was developing an argument that went along the same lines as Mr Hide’s contribution and I really want to get back to that in some degree. Section 95 “Signing of financial statements and summary financial statements” which is proposed to be substituted in the Building Societies Act by clause 6 of the Business Law Reform Bill states: “(1) The financial statements required by sections 91 and 92 and any summary financial statements prepared under section 91A must be signed on behalf of the board of directors by 2 directors of the society.” The same question that Mr Hide was posing with a slightly different slant is what was happening prior to this legislation. Do members know? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Why not? If it has been happening— 
John Key 
: We weren’t listening to the question. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Members were not listening to the question! 
John Key 
: What was the question? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I would like to repeat it. If a board was signing information prior to this legislation were board members really of a view that they did know what they were signing and they should not be signing it now? What is different? Were they acting illegally prior to this? What were they doing for the last 40 years? Well not all the members of those boards were acting illegally I am sure. But what were they doing? 
The other issue is in the proposed section 95(2): “The financial statements referred to in subsection (1) must be approved by the board of directors before they are signed on their behalf.” The same question arises. What were those boards doing prior to this? Would the Minister please take a call and explain to me what the difference will be? Were boards of directors prior to this legislation having financial statements sent out on their behalf before they signed them and knew what was in them? That seems to me to be highly irregular. We have already touched on section 95(3): “If the financial statements referred to in subsection (1) have not been signed and a copy of them is issued circulated or published the society and every officer of the society who is in default is guilty of an offence.” Were boards of directors not guilty of an offence prior to this? Why not? What has changed? What is the difference? Were they acting illegally prior to this? 
If this provision is designed to sheet home responsibility then OK that is fine but it is a bit of a slur on the good people who held those offices prior to this legislation being enacted. I am sure that over the last 40 years there have been boards of directors of building societies that have conducted themselves ethically. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Maharey Steve: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5736] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (NZ Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I think the bill now has complete unanimity despite the small political point that has been made. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Fairbrother Russell: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20507] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I support the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill going to a select committee if only because it is good to review the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from time to time. The challenge put up by this bill will cause the committee to consider provisions such as section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which dictates that the rights referred to in the Act apply “only to acts done—(a) By the legislative executive or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand;” If the purpose of this bill is to protect property against arms of Government then that is a much more limited right I would think than could be intended by this. 
We have difficulties with this bill which I hope the select committee can grapple with relating to the definition of the term “property”. By “property” one assumes that we are talking about real property—corporal property—but of course intellectual property is a huge market these days. One could argue that it protects intellectual property. One could argue that it refers to securities to interests one has in equities to testamentary promises and to areas of law that will be a litigator’s dream and a legislator’s nightmare. So the select committee will have an awesome task in trying to confine what this bill really means and one would have been assisted in the start of that if the author of the bill had provided a definition clause. Of course we all assume we know what is meant by the term “ownership” but the term has different meanings to different people. For example if we look at many of the claims under article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi we can see some of the confusion that arises. Again it would have been of assistance if the bill had provided some definition and had dealt with the problem of how the bill is to be reconciled with the scope of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
There is a conceptual matter that I have a little difficulty with and that is about rights and the minimum standard of entitlement that one has when one is living in a democracy. Rights are equivalent between subjects but of course property is owned in unequal terms. There are individuals in this community and this country who own inordinate amounts of property however one defines it and there are others who own nothing. So the bill conceptually favours some and does not favour others because some will never be in a position to exercise any of the rights created by the bill. However I am just touching on some of the difficulties that will arise. Clearly it will be a challenge to the select committee to make this bill work within the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But I think it is time we looked at some of those issues and this may well be the Trojan Horse that allows us to examine those issues. For that reason I support the bill being referred to a select committee for initial perusal.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19523] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Is it the Government’s policy to retain the Maori Land Court; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes because the Maori Land Court is an integral part of the court system providing registry land record archival and advisory services to Maori landowners. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Government’s view been influenced by the Maori Land Court Chief Judge seeing fit to act outside the law in respect of an application for guardianship under the Foreshore and Seabed Act and his acceptance of kaitiakitanga in relation to a customary rights order when kaitiakitanga is relevant only to a foreshore and seabed reserve application in the High Court and the claimants’ failure as well to supply any evidence to link their application to a customary rights order? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not prepared to speculate on whether an action of a judge is lawful or unlawful or to comment on a matter that is currently before the bench. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that rather than changing the Maori Land Court because of this one case it would be better for the Government to amend the flaws in the foreshore and seabed legislation which according to an Eastern Bays newspaper today is going to see not only Whakatohea but also Ngati Apa going to the Maori Land Court to claim a customary right over the same stretch of coastline; does he not think that that is a bit tough for the Maori Land Court to decide and does he not think it also makes a joke of the protections that his Government claimed the foreshore and seabed legislation would give New Zealanders’ rights in the coastline? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are several questions there. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are about four or five questions there. Firstly I do not think there is any reason to consider changes to the Maori Land Court. I do not accept there are flaws in the foreshore and seabed legislation and the guarantees this House has given about the ownership of the foreshore and seabed will I am sure stand the test of time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the work of a court that has allowed a guardianship claim for claimants who are disowned by the elders of the tribe they purport to represent and whose elders said this of them: “This is an under-prepared knee-jerk case with no consultation and no support from the hapu.”; where on earth is the mandate for that court to have accepted that in the first place and given that the Maori Land Court’s jurisdiction over customary rights orders was accepted by Parliament because of the court’s experience with the history of Maori land and Maori customs is this the type of action he expects to continue from the Maori Land Court? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because a case is filed it does not mean to say that it will in fact succeed.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8669] 
11.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Has he sought or received any advice on the biodiversity values of the lower Waitaki River; if so what action does he propose to take? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes I received and noted the report. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he believe that further losses of endangered black stilt wrybill plover and black-fronted tern as well as degradation of water quality and reduced salmon and trout fishery are justified in order to provide for less than 5 years’ growth in electricity demand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A full report has not yet been done on the mitigating factors that could occur regarding any water applications in respect of the Waitaki River. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What is the role of the Department of Conservation in respect of proposals for the utilisation of the Waitaki River? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My department has a statutory duty to advocate for the conservation of aquatic life and freshwater fisheries and this includes advocacy for the protection of the conservation values of the Waitaki River system. The department will participate fully in the new two-stage process recently announced by the Government in order to get the best results for conservation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is his department so relaxed about the State-owned enterprise proposal effectively to flood private land and effect some degradation upon the Waitaki River when it is completely uptight about the prospect of putting a dam in the Dobson valley on the West Coast? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Each application stands or falls on its own merits. No two applications are the same. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has he asked for any calculation of the cost to his department of attempting to restore the habitat that would be destroyed by predators and four-wheel drives if Project Aqua was allowed to take out 73 percent of the water of the Waitaki River and will he insist that all those costs be included in the economic assessment of Project Aqua? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I indicated earlier no in-depth study has yet been done on any mitigating factors that might occur regarding developments on the Waitaki River. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say that any hydro proposal will be considered on its merits when he said that he was not prepared to consider the Dobson project at all and can he now answer Mr Gerry Brownlee’s question as to why the flooding of private land in the Waitaki valley is of no concern to him but where the land is public land as in Dobson he has a very different view? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As that member should know having once held the responsibility of being the Minister of Conservation to flood an ecological area such as the Card Creek ecological area would involve changing the Conservation Act. That is a very different matter from current proposals for the Waitaki River.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16444] 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he take any responsibility for the operation of the New Zealand Police 111 system; if so how much? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I take responsibility for policy issues and the Commissioner of Police has responsibility for operational issues. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So does this Minister take any responsibility whatsoever for the situation this country now finds itself in whereby the rural communities in particular are rapidly losing faith in the ability of the 111 system to respond to their particular concerns; and if it is not his responsibility why is he drawing the salary that he is? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the public should not be mesmerised by those who seek to jump on the bandwagon of several high-profile cases. For those living away from centres of population service does take more time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Considering that people dial 111 when they are in life-threatening situations does the Minister consider it appropriate that the police consider it satisfactory that they are responding to those life-threatening situations 91 percent of the time? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Both the commissioner and I want to improve the response time and part of that is to have the review so that any areas that can be improved will be improved.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5415] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19828] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(ba)ensuring that the interests of the victims of prisoners are acknowledged and respected:
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 98 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 248 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(3)Section 50 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (5) the following subsections: 
(6)For the purposes of  
subsection (4) 
 in the case of an application for a licence to operate a pharmacy  
individual 
 includes the following persons: 
(a)an administrator of the estate of a deceased individual: 
(b)an assignee within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1967 carrying on a pharmacy in his or her capacity as assignee of the estate of an individual: 
(c)a liquidator carrying on a pharmacy under the authority of section 260 and the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Act 1993: 
(d)a receiver or manager of the property of a company carrying on subject to the Receiverships Act 1993 a pharmacy comprised in that property. 
(7) 
Subsection (6) 
 does not entitle any person to carry on business in a pharmacy after– 
(a)the expiry of 1 year after the date of the death of the deceased individual or the date on which the individual was adjudicated bankrupt or the date of the first appointment of a liquidator receiver or manager in respect of a company that has carried on a pharmacy; or 
(b)subject to any conditions that the licensing authority imposes the expiry of any extended period or periods permitted by the licensing authority.
Barker Rick: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14277] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.