edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17025] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order goes to the simple question of the ordering of calls. You have had a call from the Government and always the normal thing is then to look to the Opposition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did indicate before that I would take one more call. When I asked the member behind you Grant Robertson to take a call I said I would take one more call and then the Minister said he would like to respond to some of the questions. A member has now moved the closure motion and I intend to put— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The precedents on this are absolutely clear. If there is a debate from the Minister there has always been on every single occasion that I have been here the opportunity to respond. Calls alternate across the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what the member says. It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. I have chosen to accept the closure. I indicated when the previous member spoke that I would be taking one more call which was Grant Robertson’s. The Minister then responded to some of the questions that had been asked and I have accepted the closure motion moved by Paul Quinn.
Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17024] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I wonder whether I could help Mr Robertson who has just resumed his seat. He made a contribution that was not complicated by any merit. Let us read clause 5 of schedule 1. The member carefully went through clause 5 and he noted paragraph (a) of subclause (3) but he omitted to refer to paragraph (b) of subclause (3) which states: “in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner considers that it would be inequitable to include all or part of the land or interest.” The point is I note for Mr Robertson’s benefit that the provision is of long standing. It was in the Legal Services Act 1991. It was also in the 2000 reform when he was running around after Helen on the ninth floor. 
Grant Robertson 
: I was in New York. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Oh the member was in New York then; sorry. The fact of the matter is— 
Chris Tremain 
: He gets around. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: He does get around I must say; I am proud of that. But the provision was contained in the Legal Services Act 2000 so as I said the member made an unmeritorious point. The safeguards are there to ensure that no injustice is done to Maori.
Tremain Chris: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17023] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17013] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I will start my contribution by acknowledging the Hon Simon Power who has worked very hard as the Minister of Justice and kept members of the Justice and Electoral Committee busy. 
The National Government is committed to providing legal assistance to people who have insufficient means to pay for it. The bill principally reforms the legal aid system. Dame Margaret Bazley’s review of the legal aid system in 2009 identified inadequate processes and serious delivery issues that threaten the future viability of the system. The clear message was that it was time for fundamental changes. These changes will provide an effective legal aid system that supports the wider justice sector. The legal aid system helps to uphold the principles of and access to justice and equality before the law and natural justice that help to build and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The bill includes a number of measures to improve the competence of the legal aid system. The Legal Aid Review Panel will also come under review. It allows many New Zealanders to access justice enables them to defend themselves and upholds their basic rights. It is the cornerstone of our justice system. 
Part 2 deals with who is entitled to legal aid and who is not entitled to it. For example we do not want to encourage those people who are unlawfully in this country and who abuse the system. The commissioner may not grant legal aid to anyone who is involved in any immigration case under the Immigration Act 2009 if the person is unlawfully in New Zealand under the terms of the Act. 
To date the legal aid system is facing real challenges in terms of both increasing expenditure and the quality of legal services funded through legal aid. The bill shows that Simon Power Minister of Justice has acted speedily to address the issues identified by Dame Margaret’s report. We are confident that this package of changes will help build more confidence in the public that the legal aid system will provide a quality service for those who need it while giving taxpayers value for money.
Hayes John: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hayes John: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17021] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17017] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17010] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17008] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to bring to your attention the recurring static sounds. We heard them earlier this afternoon and they went quiet for a while. But they might be more than static. They could be electrostatic and I would hate to see colleagues from the other side of the Chamber being electrocuted unnecessarily. I just wonder whether something could be done about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member for that. I have noticed that there was a bit of static in the microphones and some work has been done on the microphones during the dinner break. I am pleased that the member is not thinking about having people electrocuted—we are past that.
Barker Rick: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17010] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have been informed that a loose cable in the server upstairs is causing the static that members have experienced today. Technical staff have tried to fix it and have made some progress but if they do more now they might make it worse. People listening to the broadcast are unaware of the problem; the broadcast going out is clear. The technical people will fix it tomorrow morning and all will be well. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will we be electrocuted? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members will not be electrocuted. 
Grant Robertson 
: Unnecessarily. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Unnecessarily anyway.
Chauvel Charles: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17001] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin my contribution by using the first opportunity I have had since the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice announced he would stand down at the next election to congratulate him in the House on his achievements in the justice portfolio and to wish him well for the future. I am sure his future will be a rosy one and I think I speak for other members on this side of the Chamber when I say that his departure will diminish the House. We will miss him I tell the Minister. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Thank you Charles. I was going to say I am here for another 8 months yet— 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Notwithstanding those sentiments as the Minister has pointed out the absence I presage will not actually occur for a little while yet and we have plenty of time to debate the matters in the Minister’s portfolio. 
I understand that this debate concerns just Part 1. I will say one or two words in respect of the Legal Services Bill and in particular the preliminary provisions that are proposed to be dealt with by the legislation. The legislation as members of the Committee will know is broadly supported by the Opposition. It is accepted that there ought to be some changes to the legal aid regime and that the legal aid system ought to be updated. The Opposition thinks the legislation has been improved by the report back from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Opposition continues to support the provisions of the legislation on a broad basis. It is quite clear that as I said some reforms were required and we see from the report back that those reforms will be somewhat improved. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:17000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16975] 
12. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Why was a state of national emergency declared on 23 February 2011? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The significant impact of the 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February required this level of response. The declaration of a state of national emergency ensures the maximum possible coordination and cooperation between central and local resources and international assistance. It also demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to help people in Canterbury to respond to this disaster. I am very proud of the civil defence response. 
Colin King 
: Why has the national state of emergency been extended? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: This natural disaster has severely stretched the ability of Canterbury to respond and recover. It is therefore appropriate for there to be a national response. The ongoing impact of the earthquake on 22 February and the continuing aftershocks is of such an extent that a combined effort across the nation will be required for some time. 
Colin King 
: How long is the national state of emergency expected to continue? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Just as long as it takes to ensure the safety and security of the people of Christchurch. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why does the Government need to maintain a national state of emergency under Part 4 of the civil defence legislation at the same time as it is preparing to make a number of new orders under the very wide powers available to it under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Because at the moment we are still in the response stage of the civil defence emergency. What the member is talking about is the recovery stage which we will address as we move on into this issue. We need to continue through the response until we are ready to approach and address the recovery issues. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it not the case that the Canterbury emergency legislation and possibly the declaration of a regional state of emergency under section 68 of the civil defence legislation would actually give the Government all the powers that it needs in order to deal with the current emergency and should he not now bring the national state of emergency to a prompt end in favour of allowing the local civil defence authorities to consider declaring a regional state of emergency with the Government relying on the powers that it has under the recovery legislation? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: That may be the member’s view; it is not mine.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16975] 
11. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Did he agree with his spokesman’s response to the situation for residents in Christchurch East following the earthquake of 22 February 2011 that “It is apparent given the scale out there that there just wasn’t sufficient hardware out there loos and the like” and what urgent actions have been taken to give priority to communities in the eastern suburbs? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Yes; and the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management agreed there needed to be a refocus on the eastern suburbs. I am advised that several thousand chemical toilets have been delivered to homes in the eastern suburbs and a further 5000 are due to arrive in Christchurch today from China. Portaloos are also currently being redeployed from other suburbs where they are no longer needed to the eastern suburbs. Life is difficult for many in Christchurch and we are all doing all we can to make these tough times a little easier. 
Rahui Katene 
: What confidence can he have that additional resources are being provided to ensure that residents in Christchurch East have their basic human needs met including the provision of water food generators sanitation facilities and support and specific support for disabled and elderly people? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Eight recovery assistance centres are now open including six in the eastern suburbs. These centres are basically one-stop shops where people can sort out emergency payments and housing issues and get counselling. Also phone calls were made to more than 23000 elderly people in Christchurch in the days after the quake to see whether they needed any specific assistance and 350 rest home residents and more than 250 disability care residents have been moved to other facilities around New Zealand in order to take pressure off damaged facilities in Canterbury. 
Rahui Katene 
: What additional resources are being provided to residents in the eastern suburbs to overcome issues arising from the length of their deprivation of support? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am advised that more than $8 million has been distributed through 50670 civil defence emergency payments to cover things like food clothing and housing for the residents of Christchurch. To date 60 percent of these payments have gone to residents in the eastern suburbs.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16972] 
8. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Will he ensure that Christchurch homeowners and businesses are able to access insurance cover from existing policies or new cover they require since the 22 February 2011 earthquake? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: We have had and will continue to have discussions with the insurance industry. The ability to get future cover will in no small part depend on good-quality information regarding the land condition and future performance of that land. Work has already begun to collect and collate that information. The insurance industry has for the most part done a good job since 4 September and we expect that good work to continue. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister seen or heard any reports about businesses that had business interruption insurance claims denied after the first earthquake of 4 September last year because they could “open the door of their businesses” even though customers could not climb over the tonnes of rubble to get inside to do any business? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The advice I have had is that if the member is aware of any specific case of an insurance company failing to honour the terms and conditions of the policy he or the person involved should take it straight to the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman. If the insurance company is in breach of its responsibilities it will soon be put right. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister seen or heard any reports of home buyers who signed contracts before the earthquake of 22 February being unable to get insurance coverage for their new home after the earthquake; if so what is to happen to them? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am advised that after any great disaster like the one Christchurch has experienced there is a period in which insurance companies will not provide cover while they try to reassess what the risks are and try to re-establish on an actuarial basis what sorts of premiums would be required to cover them. In every case that we have seen elsewhere in the world including after the 4 September quake that insurance coverage came back into the market quite quickly after things had settled down. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Given that answer and the fact that many of these people do not have insurance even though they have a contract for their new house will he be prepared to convene a meeting in the next week or so between insurance company representatives and Christchurch MPs to discuss issues of concern in relation to both business interruption policy payments and new insurance contracts for housing and other domestic insurance? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I would certainly give the matter some consideration but I want to be sure that other factors that are being taken into account right now and other actions that are being taken will not be disrupted by such a move.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16971] 
7. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What work has been done to help the families of tertiary students and tertiary institutions affected by the 22 February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Ministry of Education officials have been meeting daily with the families of those tragically affected by the earthquake particularly those from King’s Education which as most members will now be aware was located in the CTV building. I have personally met with most of the international students’ families and the directors of King’s Education to offer my and the Government’s sympathies and support to the families of both students and staff. Officials are working hard to coordinate support from other Government agencies insurance providers and foreign embassies to obtain certainty for the affected families as soon as possible. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What is the Government doing to assist tertiary students in institutions that can no longer provide tuition as they expected to do? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly I note that it is the intention of Canterbury University Lincoln University and Otago University to begin to restart classes in Christchurch next week on 14 March and they will progressively increase their provision from that date. Tertiary officials are currently working with the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology as well as other institutes of technology and private training establishments in the city on options including relocating within the city and temporarily housing courses at other institutions. Many tertiary providers have obtained alternative space and some continue to seek alternative space for their students either with other institutions in Christchurch or in some cases further afield like Auckland and even Adelaide. I am very pleased about how the public and private providers are working together to address the space issues. I have also relaxed enrolment caps in institutions outside of Christchurch to allow them to take on some students directly affected by the earthquake if that is required.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16969] 
4. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to support Canterbury businesses and employees through the earthquake recovery? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have put in place a range of support for Canterbury businesses and employees. A response implemented within 6 days of the earthquake includes a 6-week financial assistance package to support workers through the earthquake support subsidy and individuals through the job-loss cover payment. To date we have assisted over 41000 individuals and we have paid out assistance of more than $53 million to those Canterbury businesses and their employees. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Who is eligible for this financial assistance? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In comparison with the earthquake in September we actually broadened the criteria of the subsidy and increased the weekly amount. That acknowledges the scale and how big this earthquake was. We have included large employers. We have included those who are sole traders and contractors. We have also in circumstances included those who have had a significant loss of trade—for example taxi drivers and the like—which makes it quite different. People are applying more online than they are by phone which is freeing up a lot of that activity locally as well. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Is it her intention to extend the Government’s earthquake employment support package; if so how long for and when is a formal announcement on this likely to be made? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Decisions on that have not yet been made.
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:670;Page:16964] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 in relation to the extension of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City. 
On 23 February I declared a state of national emergency for Christchurch City under section 66 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. This was as a result of the magnitude 6.3 earthquake that had struck Christchurch on 22 February and the continuing aftershocks. It was the first time in New Zealand’s history that a state of national emergency had been declared as a result of a civil defence emergency event. That declaration meant that under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management could “control the exercise and performance of functions duties and powers of Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups and Group Controllers.” It ensured the maximum possible coordination and cooperation between central and local resources and international assistance. 
Under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act “A state of emergency expires with the commencement of the seventh day after the date on which it was declared” unless it is further extended or terminated earlier. I considered it necessary to keep the state of national emergency in place due to the ongoing coordination and resources required to respond to this disaster. I therefore extended the duration of the state of national emergency on 1 March 2011 and further extended it on 7 March 2011 under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. The extensions have demonstrated the Government’s ongoing commitment to helping people in Canterbury to respond to this event. I will continue monitoring the situation and will make further extensions as required. 
I would like to pay tribute to the international urban search and rescue parties which included teams from Australia Singapore Taiwan Japan the United States the United Kingdom and China. Those international teams have worked tirelessly alongside New Zealand teams. I also acknowledge the disaster victim identification assistance we received from Australia Thailand Japan Israel the United Kingdom Singapore China and Korea. Offers of other various types of assistance have also been received from many other countries around the world. 
Our thoughts are with the people in Canterbury who have suffered from the disaster particularly those who have lost loved ones.
Key John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Key John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:670;Page:16964] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I take this moment to thank all of the members of Parliament who have made a contribution this afternoon and all those who I know would want to make a contribution to show solidarity with the people of Christchurch. The nature of politics is such that I have absolutely no doubt that in the weeks and months and years ahead there will be disagreement in this House over various aspects of the rebuilding of Christchurch. That is the reality and nature of politics. But it is also true that we all sit and stand here today unified in our desire to see Christchurch rebuilt as a stronger modern city where people can go about their lives and enjoy one of the finest and greatest parts of not only New Zealand but the world to live in. It will be a long process as we put together Christchurch but it is our second-largest city the home to 400000 people a significant part of our economic base and a place where all New Zealanders have some attachment or memories. It is important that we get that job done properly quickly and with the best interests of Cantabrians in mind.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16974] 
10. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does the Government intend to proceed this week with its legislation to replace the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill is set down on the Order Paper to have its second reading later today. If the member wants to know how the bill will proceed I suggest he speak to the Leader of the House who has responsibility for House business. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the National-led Government together with its coalition partner the Maori Party proceeding with its controversial and flawed foreshore and seabed legislation at the very time the Government has been asking the Opposition to cooperate and put politics aside following the earthquake in the wider interests of our country? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The question is fundamentally flawed because the bill is not flawed. It provides an enduring solution to a problem that has vexed New Zealand for many years particularly over questions of access to justice. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can that be given that last year the Prime Minister John Key told New Zealand that he would stick with the status quo and not proceed with the new bill if it did not have broad support and would not settle the issue when it is patently clear it will not do that? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I disagree that it is patently clear that the legislation will not solve this vexed problem. I suggest that when one does a count of those for or against a bill one does more than rely on the statements of those who have the biggest mouths. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is not the real reason the Government is still proceeding with its exceedingly political foreshore and seabed bill the same reason that Government members pushed the bill through the select committee without proper consideration—that is the Government is trying to push through its deal with the Maori Party now in the hope that it will be forgotten by the time of the election? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Government realistically expect the Opposition to act in a bipartisan way with the Government when National is acting so politically on so many fronts while pretending that it is not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Attorney-General does not have any particular responsibility for how the Government might be relating to the Opposition. The Minister is the Attorney-General and is responsible for matters to do with his portfolio. I do not want to deprive the member of the chance to ask his question. I invite him to reword it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Attorney-General accept that the political way in which the Government is pushing through the foreshore and seabed legislation will undermine calls by the Government for the Opposition to act in a bipartisan manner following the quake? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No.
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Christchurch Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:670;Page:16954] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In Christchurch we have seen nature at its very worst and we have seen people at their very very best. The earth on which we stand and rely has opened up and thrown everything it has at the people of Christchurch shaking their places of work to destruction destroying their homes and taking away loved ones. Amongst that horror and amongst that rubble we have seen the human spirit in people strong and supportive for themselves for their neighbours for their community and for their country. We have seen that spirit reaching out to complete strangers. 
It is now 2 weeks since the earthquake and there is destruction and despair the likes of which we have never seen. We in this House today stand together with the nation to mourn the deaths of all those whom we have lost in this tragic event and to send our Parliament’s thoughts and prayers to those whose loved ones are still missing. To those whom we have lost: know that you will for ever remain in our thoughts and in our hearts and that you will never ever be forgotten. 
On 18 March in Christchurch’s North Hagley Park the people of Canterbury and New Zealand will have the opportunity to come together to reflect on the terrible loss suffered as a result of the quake and to celebrate and remember the lives of those who have passed. But as Prime Minister John Key has said the service will be a beginning not an end. 
On behalf of the ACT Party I join all the other parties in our Parliament in thanking all those who have assisted in the rescue and recovery efforts: Kiwis who may have been a member of one of the many rescue teams out in Christchurch people from distant lands who have come to help members of the student army Christchurch residents who helped neighbours in need and the many Kiwis who have donated money to one of the many charities set up to help our Cantabrians get back on their feet. Every bit of this help—and more important the thought behind it—no matter how small is important and for this we thank them. Our hearts beat proud of this great country. 
Looking to the future we know that Christchurch will rise again. Christchurch will be rebuilt and its heart will beat stronger than ever before. Out of tragedy there always comes hope and we are seeing New Zealanders at their very best. As we dig deep for the sake of our loved ones—those who have passed and those who live—for the sake of our community and for the sake of our country we are reminded once again more than ever that it is people who matter. Thank you.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Hone Harawira—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Hone Harawira—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
[Volume:670;Page:16951] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the Maori Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Hone Harawira is no longer a member of the Maori Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) Hone Harawira is from 23 February 2011 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. The allocations of speaking slots and oral questions will be adjusted. The allocations of funding to the Maori Party and to Hone Harawira will also be adjusted.
Barker Rick: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17027] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. I hoped that was what the member was thinking because I certainly did not hear the Chairperson say he had sought a closure motion. That was not what I heard him say. I am pleased that we have clarified that. 
I start by saying it is entirely usual for the debate to flow backwards and forwards and for calls to be taken from one side and the other. That is a longstanding practice. However having said that I say the rules are very clear. The question of who gets the next call is at the sole discretion of the Chairperson—no one else. It is not a matter on which any correspondence can be entered into. It is at the Chairperson’s sole discretion and that must always remain the case. The second point is that if members go through the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings they will see that overwhelmingly previous Speakers have ruled that the Chairperson is the sole judge on whether a motion of closure ought to be put to the Committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not arguing about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I just want to make sure that that is at the Chairperson’s sole discretion. No Speaker has overruled a Chairperson on that issue and this Speaker is not doing so. I make it clear that that is the Chairperson’s decision. It has also been the case that the Chairperson is the person who listens to the ebb and flow of the debate and is the person best placed to see whether the Committee is of a mind to accept a closure motion. A closure is not the Chairperson’s decision; it is the Committee’s decision. We all know that although those may be the rules the reality is usually somewhat different. If a closure motion is not accepted we know the consequences that flow from that as well so it is unlikely that a Government will vote against its own closure motion. I accept that. I say to members that as far as the Speaker is concerned the decision to put a closure motion to the Committee is the Chairperson’s and the Chairperson’s alone and I accept the judgment of the Chairperson in this particular case.
Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:670;Page:16965] 
Points of Order 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been brought to our attention by people from outside the House that there appears to be a problem with the microphones and the sound in the House. I think many of us heard some pretty bad interference noises earlier. I ask whether your staff are looking into the problem and I seek some level of assurance that the problems are now fixed. I note that we are not now hearing the interference that we heard earlier in the day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter has been addressed I understand.
Hague Kevin: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17016] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by joining others in acknowledging the particular contribution that has been made by the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power to this Parliament and to previous Parliaments. It is a worthwhile contribution always. 
I had not intended to take a call on this bill but having had a good look at Part 2 it suggests a contribution I can make. I am a person who has some significant experience of the criminal law although I have always chosen to defend myself rather than to avail myself of legal aid. I am pretty proud of my record of acquittals I have to say on criminal charges which probably exceed that of most legal aid lawyers. I want to pick up on this theme that several speakers have mentioned this evening of a universal right to access to justice. That seems to me to be pretty fundamental. What has drawn my attention is clause 8(1)(c)(ii) which provides limitations on that right to access justice. I guess we need to be pretty confident if we are going to impose some limitations that those are reasonably justified limitations. The Minister has talked in this debate about his intention to put incentives in place in this overall reform programme in the justice arena. I am concerned that clause 8(2) lists a series of grounds that the commissioner is required to take into account when applying clause 8(1)(c)(ii). Bearing in mind the incentives that the Minister is putting in place in the bill it effectively invites the commissioner to use those grounds to deny legal aid. 
What I am concerned about is that some of those grounds seem to be not relevant to determining what the interests of justice might be. I will not address all of them but if I could perhaps just draw attention to clause 8(2)(a)(i) regarding whether the applicant has any previous convictions. The commissioner is invited to take that into account in determining whether the interests of justice are served by granting legal aid in relation to some new offence. It seems to me that previous convictions cannot be relevant to whether the interests of justice are served by a person who is accused having access to legal aid—access to justice—in a given case. It seems to me that this has probably arisen because clause 8(1)(c)(ii) relates to the situation where an offence is punishable by less than 6 months’ imprisonment and that is probably considered to be a relatively minor offence where the consequences are not so severe in the case of a conviction. However the consequences of a conviction that carries less than 6 months’ imprisonment may in fact still be extremely severe for the person who is facing that charge. I invite the Minister to perhaps comment on how previous convictions might possibly be relevant to determining what the interests of justice are in the case of a person charged with some new offence. That is all I really had to say on this part.
Mallard Trevor: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17026] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The thing I am now getting really anxious about is the indication from the Chairman that he sought a closure motion. The Chairman should never seek—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry; I think that is what the Chairman said. What did the Chairman say? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We are not having a debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not want to debate but that is what I thought the Chairman said—that he had sought a closure motion. That of course would be very wrong.
Sio Su'a William: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17031] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that Part 3 stand part. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member must go for the call straight away. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I was so busy trying to prepare my speech that I did not hear the bell ring. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Legal Services Bill. Before I begin because we have come back after the adjournment I want to acknowledge—as others have acknowledged—that the country is in mourning as a result of the disaster in Christchurch. Under these circumstances it is somewhat difficult to simply get into the mode of attacking members on the other side of the Chamber. It is quite difficult to get into the mood of making significant contributions as the Opposition when we know that families in Christchurch are mourning their loved ones and the loss of their homes. So I apologise for my rather slow movement to take a call on the bill. 
Nevertheless I will make reference in Part 3 firstly to clause 77 which states that “The Secretary may give a person approval to provide 1 or more legal aid services or specified legal services if the Secretary is satisfied that the person meets the criteria prescribed in regulations.” I recognise the basis for the bill but to me in so far as the wider community is concerned this is not necessarily a priority. There are people out there who are suffering and struggling to make ends meet. It seems to me that this Government has its priority the wrong side out. Nevertheless when we talk about acknowledging the facts that legal aid services are important and many many people— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Speaker’s Statements — Hone Harawira—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
Speaker’s Statements — Hone Harawira—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
[Volume:670;Page:16951] 
Tuesday 8 March 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Hone Harawira—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the Maori Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Hone Harawira is no longer a member of the Maori Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) Hone Harawira is from 23 February 2011 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. The allocations of speaking slots and oral questions will be adjusted. The allocations of funding to the Maori Party and to Hone Harawira will also be adjusted.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:670;Page:16965] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been brought to our attention by people from outside the House that there appears to be a problem with the microphones and the sound in the House. I think many of us heard some pretty bad interference noises earlier. I ask whether your staff are looking into the problem and I seek some level of assurance that the problems are now fixed. I note that we are not now hearing the interference that we heard earlier in the day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter has been addressed I understand.
Henare Tau: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17105] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17114] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independent: Harawira. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 7—sorry clause 8. Clause 7 no longer exists; I think it is with the half-hectare of land.
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17111] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17107] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have not heard from Kris Faafoi. I look forward to an enlightened speech.
Carter David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17106] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goodhew Jo: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17109] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ardern Shane: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17095] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17101] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bridges Simon: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17101] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ardern Shane: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17100] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We are struggling for relevancy here. I will give the call to the Hon Steve Chadwick with a caution to make it relevant.
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17098] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Roy Eric: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17097] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next speaker Iain Lees-Galloway who has been trying hard to get the call I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention a miscalculation in the votes on the closure motion to clause 2. The correct number is Ayes 76 Noes 43. It does not change the outcome. I seek leave for the record to be amended. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. It will be amended.