edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tanczos Nandor: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tanczos Nandor: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like other members before me I rise to give a fairly brief contribution to this debate because so much has already been said on it. The Judicial Retirement Age Bill was a fairly small bill and the bills into which it has been split are fairly straightforward in what they do. We have had some very good contributions through the first reading select committee second reading and Committee of the whole House stages. All of the arguments have been well canvassed. I would particularly like to acknowledge the contribution of Chris Finlayson who I think has added some quite deep historical information and perspective to the debates. I just want to acknowledge and thank him for that. 
The only thing I would add is that I was reflecting on the debate during the passage of the Supreme Court Act. One of the arguments that was put forward was about the small legal pool we have in this country and some people seemed to be of the view that our judiciary was just not up to the job. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that there is no basis in that claim. I think New Zealand has produced some exceptional jurists in our time. That is quite evident. I would also say that if one looks at the Supreme Court that we have today one can see there are a number of excellent jurists to be found there as well. But raising the retirement age a smidgen as we are doing in this bill perhaps helps to even further demolish that argument because it actually allows us to retain the services of our exceptional jurists for that bit longer. 
That was all I really wanted to cover today except just finally to reply to the point that has been made around whether we should have a retirement age at all. The only comment I would make is that although I think the idea is an interesting one it creates an enormous practical difficulty. If there is no retirement age on what basis do we then retire our judges? It becomes a case-by-case decision. Who is going to make it? And given the enormous sensitivity—and rightly so—around issues of judicial independence and the potential for interference with judges it becomes a very difficult thing if we do not have a standard condition that applies in terms of who gets retired when. I think the sensitivities around it are just too difficult for us to look at going down that way. That would be my reply to that argument. But apart from that I think the House seems to be in absolute agreement on this legislation and I look forward to its passage.
Wilkinson Kate: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking in support of the third readings of these bills which increase the retirement age from 60 to 70 years of age for judges I have often been asked throughout the passage of the legislation why we need a retirement age for judges at all. Why should there should be a mandatory retirement age and why should judges not just retire when they feel like it when they no longer feel able to do the job properly or indeed when they no longer want to do the job? A mandatory retirement age for judges is not peculiar to the New Zealand jurisdiction. It has been noted that this legislation brings the age of their retirement into line with other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland. Canada is a bit more generous in allowing its judges to retire at 75 years of age; certainly there is no magic in 70 years of age as opposed to 75 years of age. 
A mandatory retirement age is essential for a number of reasons. These have been canvassed before but they are worth repeating. One is the vital principle of judicial independence. There must be a separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislators. That is how our democracy works and it is an important foil against any semblance of corruption. Politicians should not and must not be in a position to fire judges. Judges must be able to act independently. If they cannot act independently or are not seen to act independently then any confidence in our judicial system will be seriously eroded. 
Judges must be able to deal with the merits of any case without having to worry about whether they still have a job because they interpreted the law—which we made—contrary to how we intended it to be interpreted. That is why it is so important that we do get the law right and that we do not blame the judges for their decisions. They apply the law that we make. If the decision is not what Parliament intended then it is up to us to put it right and to make sure that the law we make is understandable or more to the point that it is not able to be misunderstood. Judges must have independence and we must conscientiously protect and maintain the separation of powers principle. 
This is straightforward and non-controversial legislation. It merely increases the retirement age of the judges in the District Court the High Court the Employment Court the Maori Land Court and the coroners’ court. It is consistent with other jurisdictions. National supports this legislation.
Worth Richard: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I join my colleague Chris Finlayson in indicating that National supports this legislation. The original bill the Judicial Retirement Age Bill has been divided into six bills. The reason is that separate changes are being made to separate statutes. 
It is very unusual to have a retiring age in the context of modern society. The reality is that Prime Ministers can serve for as long as their luck lasts and that is so in the case of many public officials. But here we see that it is appropriate to set a specific retiring age in the context of protecting and enhancing judicial tenure. There is no magic in age 70 being selected as the age for retirement. The age might as previous speakers have said have been set higher and for one part of our judiciary it was set at 72 for a period of time. 
I simply note in my concluding comments on this legislation—the next stage of course being the Royal assent—that we do have an ability for acting judges of the Supreme Court to serve until the age of 75. I repeat the hope I have expressed that this change to the legislation will not prompt part-time judges to have a place in our system for judging is very much a full-time business.
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on this legislation. It is common-sense legislation and I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its sensible approach of referring the matter back to the House. The legislation has been very uncontroversial. All the comments we received were in favour of it and it brings us into line with other jurisdictions. It means we can use the very good skills that we have in our judiciary for longer. I think that changing the age of retirement from 68 years to 70 years is a move in the right direction and that it will enhance the service provided by our judiciary. For that reason I commend the bills to the House.
Barker Rick: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3) the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2) Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) the Coroners Act 1988 Amendment Bill and the Coroners Act 2006 Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation raises the retirement age for all judges of all courts and for associate judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 to 70 years. 
As mentioned in my previous speeches a compulsory retirement age for the judiciary is desirable for two main reasons. The first is judicial independence. The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental concept underlying New Zealand’s democratic system. A compulsory retirement age is key to protecting that independence. The second reason is that a compulsory retirement age means that monitoring of individual judges to guard against issues of incapacity is not required. Raising the retirement age of the judiciary to 70 years brings New Zealand into line with comparative overseas jurisdictions in particular the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee were comfortable with the changes in the legislation. These changes are also supported by the judiciary itself. For these reasons I commend the bills to the House.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7676. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: Has the Walking Access Consultation Panel report been discussed at Cabinet and when will the report be released to the public? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Yes and in due course. 
Hon David Carter 
: For how long has the Minister sat on this report and why will he not release it immediately to the public of New Zealand and put our farming community at ease? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The chairman of the panel presented the report to me just over a week ago. The farming community can rest assured that this report I am sure will be welcomed. It will also be welcomed by the recreational sector as well. It is a very sensible proposition. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that this Government has a responsibility to uphold its 1999 election manifesto pledge to complete the Queen’s Chain by securing access to the 30 percent of waterways and coast where the Queen’s Chain either does not exist or is misaligned; if so is he concerned about rumours that the Walking Access Consultation Panel has backed down from making such a recommendation in the wake of pressure from a minority of farming interests? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not concerned about any rumours at all. The Queen’s Chain is something that New Zealanders have expected and upheld through the years. However on close analysis as that member should be very aware one finds that the legal imposition of the Queen’s Chain is not as easy as one would think. The panel has after extensive consultation and research come up with some very wise recommendations on how to move forward. 
Hon David Carter 
: So are the media reports correct that the report is a massive back-down for the Prime Minister on her original promise to ensure public access to our lakes rivers and coastline by forcing access over private land? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the report represent the unanimous view of all eight panel members; if not who holds a dissenting view? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I would encourage that member to hold his breath until the report is released. 
Nathan Guy 
: Will local government be expected to negotiate with landowners over messy paper road deals; will it be like so many other bits of legislation passed by the Labour Government where the ratepayer will bear the cost? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No. The issue of paper roads or unformed legal roads as is their proper title is one that has been raised and thoroughly canvassed by the panel. There are some recommendations again to make some sensible progress on that difficult issue. 
Nathan Guy 
: I seek leave to table Landcorp Farming Ltd’s statement of corporate intent for 2007 2008 and 2009 and in particular its land management philosophies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7676. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What actions if any is the Government taking to close down RaceO the Internet gambling site that went live on Saturday? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that officials of the Department of Internal Affairs are actively investigating the website in question. I expect to be advised of the result of those investigations within about 4 weeks. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why was the Government not ready to deal with this website immediately given that as long ago as 1999 the briefing to the incoming Minister for Racing at that time advised way back then that a RaceO Internet site was proposed and was not permitted in terms of the law; as this advice has been available since then and the 2003 Gambling Act confirmed the law in that area why has it taken until now to investigate how to stop it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is very hard to investigate intentions. The department had to wait until the website was an actual reality and investigate that. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does he believe that the Government has the power to shut down RaceO or are we witnessing the first of many Internet gaming sites with all the associated damage to problem gamblers and to the New Zealand racing industry that will come from them? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The answer to that question will be known at the end of the department’s investigation.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7667. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What has been the impact on households of Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The impact has been very considerable indeed. From 1 April 2007 an estimated three out of every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to further tax credits through Working for Families. Also from 1 April Working for Families tax credits will increase by a further $10 per child per week which depending on family circumstances is an increase of between 12 and 21 percent. That also means that from 1 April a family with two children on the average family income will be in total $136 per week better off than previously. Under National’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy the same single-income family would be in comparison $91 per week worse off from 1 April onwards. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the total increase to Working for Families tax credits as at 1 April this year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can advise the House that the 1 April increases to the Working for Families tax credits will distribute a further $366 million to Kiwi families with children. I note that National’s policy announced today is a proposal to divert between $60 million and $90 million from tax revenue as a tax break for donations. That idea seems to be based on taking money from lower-income families and giving it to wealthy families so they can donate it to lower-income families. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What further reports has the Minister received on the effects of the Working for Families package? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to read an excerpt from a letter to the  
Dominion Post  
from Judith Baxter of Khandallah which reads in part: “The scheme”—Working for Families—“recognises and encourages women in their mothering role and by offering financial support gives women more choice when deciding how many hours of paid work they need to supplement the family income or to advance a career. The power to choose takes the pressure off mums who have felt they must work reduces the need for expensive childcare and can only benefit the family as it is intended to do.” I seek leave to table a number of letters to the editor around the success of the Working for Families package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7657. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the appropriate settings for good fiscal management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] I am so pleased to see the National Party applauding Labour Party questions. I have received numerous such reports. Standard and Poor’s Asia-Pacific Sovereign Report Card highlights the Government’s solid fiscal profile. It follows on from Standard and Poor’s report last year that concluded the Government’s programme of debt reduction provision for future superannuation costs has made us one of the best placed nations in the world to cope with the costs of an ageing population. The report also noted that large-scale tax cuts would be “very short-sighted” and questioned whether they would be sustainable. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to fiscal management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports suggesting the Government runs far too tight a fiscal position reflected in excessively large Budget surpluses and it should be significantly loosened up to $11 billion a year. I have also seen reports suggesting that the current fiscal position is far too loose and should be tightened meaning we should be aiming for much larger surpluses. The first of those reports is from John Key and the second is from his co-leader Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that his current fiscal policy is and I quote from the Reserve Bank’s statement “quite expansionary” and can he confirm to the House that this means his big spending plans in the run-up to the next election are one of the things that will cause interest rates to rise for householders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note first of all that the member has already called in a statement only last week for the Governor of the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates further. I note further that the member has promised a $200 million a year reduction in spending on tertiary education without saying where it will come from and I note that it is completely at odds with his leader who not only promised large tax cuts but today promised another $60 million to $90 million a year. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What reports has the Minister seen on new developments in fiscal policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Just today I have seen reports suggesting that a major new policy on welfare would be released. I was somewhat surprised when I read the actual reports of this major new policy which is simply the National Party’s submission on the tax and charities discussion document released by my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne earlier this month. It is of course Mr Dunne who has been leading the charge in terms of changes to the charities taxation regime.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12652. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the staffing reduction in actual numbers that is encompassed in the new “leaner” Te Kete Hauora and what evidence supports the relocation of the service development team and the chief adviser Maori health into the sector capability and innovation directorate? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The answer to the member’s first question is “Nine” and the answer to the second question is that it was done to further strengthen the ministry’s ability to respond to Maori health issues across the ministry. 
Tariana Turia 
: What kinds of skills and expertise are being brought into the team to measure the so-called gains in the last administration and why was a deputy director-general not appointed from the outstanding applicants who applied for that position? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the second question lies with the director-general. I have no role in that as the member may be aware. The answer to the first part of her supplementary question is that the main measurement is a census mortality survey which is ongoing and which is one of very few such studies in the world. It is a very important study and I look forward to the next update because I am hoping we will see still further progress. In general what is happening is that the ministry is intent on increasing its capacity and capability for Maori health across the ministry—the Maori Provider Development Scheme for example is now with the sector capability and innovation directorate because that is where its natural home is—but the budget for Te Kete Hauora has actually remained unchanged even though there are now fewer staff there which suggests that the director-general has in his mind the possibility of further appointments. 
Tariana Turia 
: How often will the ministry change the deckchairs from sector-specific to mainstream and how will progressively dismantling Te Kete Hauora and spreading a mere eight Maori people across all of the directorates improve health and reduce inequalities given the poor outcomes being achieved to date? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think we have gone from sector-specific to mainstream. In the previous incarnation there was a directorate for Maori health and in the current ministry there is a directorate for Maori health. Nine people have been shifted from that directorate across to the sector capability and innovation directorate. The reason for that is that they manage the contracts and they manage the development of Maori providers—they are quite clever people in my view. These are all decisions that are taken not by me but by the director-general. I think he is making a good job of the reconfiguration of the ministry and I think that it has quite a lot of momentum now that it did not have earlier.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12644. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any reports regarding the ease of doing business in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have seen the  
Doing Business 2008 
 report from the World Bank which again ranks New Zealand as second in the world out of 178 countries—only marginally behind Singapore—for ease of doing business. The data used by the World Bank was compiled just before changes were made by the Companies Office and the Inland Revenue Department to streamline the time it takes to set up a company down from 12 days to—now—a single day. If this change had been included in this year’s World Bank data New Zealand would probably have been No. 1 so I hope we can achieve that next year. New Zealand’s success featured in a  
Jakarta Post 
 article entitled “Ease in E-Business start-up: New Zealand’s Lesson to Learn”. 
Maryan Street 
: Has she seen any other reports that contain good news for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have. I have the seen the results of the fifth annual KPMG - Business New Zealand compliance costs survey which were released this month and which indicate that compliance costs for small business are on the way down. Interestingly this survey shows that for firms employing five or fewer staff compliance costs have fallen by about a thousand dollars per full-time employee over the past year. I think this is great news for small business which—due to issues of scale and scope—often feels the weight of compliance the most. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Why is she praising her Government over the World Bank’s ease of doing business survey when the survey does not cover issues such as taxation environmental law and resource management compliance which are some of the top concerns among business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would advise that member not to believe everything he reads in a Business New Zealand press release and to actually go and read the World Bank survey which does cover those matters. 
Maryan Street 
: Are there any other aspects of the KPMG - Business New Zealand survey that would reflect the Government’s commitment to business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As Minister of Commerce I am particularly proud that the Companies Office has been ranked as the most helpful Government agency for the fifth year in a row. This result reflects well on the staff but also the culture of an organisation that refuses to rest on its laurels and seeks continuous quality improvement. I know that my colleagues are also very pleased to see that the Department of Labour the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Customs Service all rated well with survey participants and improved their ratings over previous years reflecting the cross-Government commitment to improving service to business.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to.
Carter John: Appointments — Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Appointments — Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand for his recent appointment as the new chairman of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
  
the the first person from New Zealand and the South Pacific to serve in this role an outstanding achievement in the furthering of importance of local government and democracy. 
Motion agreed to.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12653. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: What reports has she received on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I recently received three reports on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers. The first was a report by TV3’s  
Target 
 show which stated that the level of formaldehyde in clothing being sold to New Zealanders was higher than internationally recognised acceptable levels. Unfortunately these tests were incomplete and misunderstood the international guidelines being measured. The second was a comprehensive report undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that found there was no risk to New Zealanders as 97 of the 99 items tested were well within international acceptable levels and the two that did not meet those levels did so after being washed. The third report was a statement made by National’s Kate Wilkinson that asserted we were “endangering our children’s lives” and insisted we “remove unsafe products from shelves” based on unsubstantiated and inadequate tests done on a TV show. I think that member should apologise. 
Darien Fenton 
: What action has been taken in light of the finding that clothes available in New Zealand pose no risk? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: There has been a great deal of interest from New Zealand manufacturers importers and retailers. There have been close conversations with Australia and other international partners and in line with those discussions we have introduced a draft product safety policy statement which sets acceptable levels of formaldehyde. I reiterate that the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act in this country guarantee that consumers can assume that all goods are safe and fit for the purpose.
Horomia Parekura: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horomia Parekura: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I wish to correct two figures given when responding to question No. 12 yesterday. I mentioned the figure of $3.6 million in respect of expense transfers to 2007-08 to fund Maori wardens’ development and extensions to the Treaty 2U touring exhibition. This figure should be corrected to read $3.06 million. In addition the figure of 2007 unemployed youths in Gisborne in 1999 should be corrected to 207. I apologise to the House and request that these figures be corrected.
Appointments — Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Appointments — Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 24 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appointments 
Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand for his recent appointment as the new chairman of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
  
the the first person from New Zealand and the South Pacific to serve in this role an outstanding achievement in the furthering of importance of local government and democracy. 
Motion agreed to.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I wish to correct two figures given when responding to question No. 12 yesterday. I mentioned the figure of $3.6 million in respect of expense transfers to 2007-08 to fund Maori wardens’ development and extensions to the Treaty 2U touring exhibition. This figure should be corrected to read $3.06 million. In addition the figure of 2007 unemployed youths in Gisborne in 1999 should be corrected to 207. I apologise to the House and request that these figures be corrected.
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Property Law Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Property Law Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11768. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Property Law Bill. This bill replaces the Property Law Act which was first passed in 1952. It is well over 55 years since the Act has been reviewed and I think it is time that we did something to change it. It is interesting that such an important Act which controls property of all kinds—including land—and the rules that underpin most activities and transactions in the everyday lives of New Zealanders has still been sitting there for 55 years. 
The aim of this bill is to simplify and to explain some of the very many technical issues that control property in New Zealand. It is a very complex bill. For an ordinary layperson who deals with property every day and deals with these kinds of transactions it is important that he or she can understand what is in this law and I think it is time that we looked at it. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Bill read a second time.
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Property Law Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Like my colleague Mr Finlayson I too have found the Property Law Bill to be riveting legislation and indeed it must be one of the largest bills in the House. It is a very large one indeed. I rise to speak on the second reading of the bill which is the stage where the House is asked to adopt in principle the bill before it and as a National MP I am pleased to be part of National’s support for this bill. It is a pleasure to speak on it because as was mentioned by my colleague the honourable Richard Worth during the first reading it is one of the most important bills that the House will deal with. 
This bill replaces the Property Law Act of 1952 in reforming and codifying certain aspects of the law relating to real and personal property. The work behind this bill was done by Justice Peter Blanchard as was mentioned by my colleague Mr Finlayson. Justice Peter Blanchard is a commissioner with the Law Commission. He completed his work on this bill in 1994. It is significant legislation and it will touch many people’s lives. It restates and clarifies the existing Act and includes some rules currently found in general law and in other Acts. There are a large number of small reforms to the rules that collectively will improve the effectiveness of the law. Clarity accessibility and effectiveness are features of this new bill. It will provide certainty in property dealings and it protects people’s property rights. It codifies the law relating to property that was previously set out as rules of general law relating to the creation and control of property of all kinds including land. Those rules underpin a vast range of activities and transactions in the day-to-day life of New Zealanders. The bill is fundamental to the workings of our society. 
However it is sad that the bill has had to be subject to such delays by not being advanced earlier by this Government in a timely manner. Once it was introduced and it reached the Justice and Electoral Committee it benefited from the attention of my colleagues from this side of the House particularly and from others which enhanced the effectiveness of it. It was an interesting bill to have going through the select committee process. It was however a big disappointment that it did not include the joint ownership of land the Unit Titles Act and the Land Transfer Act in a comprehensive reform of property law overall. That would have been a good thing. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank my colleague Kate Wilkinson. It was also a disappointment that we had such a paucity of submissions particularly from the legal fraternity. This bill is the largest single change to property law in the past 55 years and it was deserving of more attention from those who work within the confines of the law and indeed who profit from it. 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Locke Keith: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and we generally support the comments that other speakers have made. My colleague Sue Bradford was on the Social Services Committee and found the discussion very interesting. 
It is important to recognise that unless we make the sophisticated amendments proposed in the bill rights can be taken away from people because some of those seeking power of attorney might be a bit paternalistic or power-hungry in some respects. That can be a problem. Sometimes—as other speakers have alluded to—there can be eccentricities in a person and some might define that person as not being in full control of his or her faculties so they might wish to take the power off him or her for one reason or another. That is not a good course of action. The presumption of innocence and all the hoops that have to be gone through—medical retests and all the rest of it—are important in controlling that situation. 
The other factor that can sometimes come in is just straight-out greed. People often want to get control of other people’s affairs for their own pecuniary interests. It does not happen with great frequency in society but it is this sort of thing that we want good systems to control against. This bill helps to provide those systems so the Green Party will be supporting it. Thank you.
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) section 77E.
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Members will be pleased to know I have two further amendments to this part on behalf of the Green Party which also relate to armed inflight security officers except in this case we are talking about what are called foreign inflight security officers. It is a bit different in that these are people who are essentially from other nations on other airlines such as United Airlines or whatever—airlines on which America already has armed inflight security officers. The particular problem here in relation to clause 17 that inserts new section 77E “Foreign in-flight security officers” is that if we allow them on as this bill provides for they will then be able to get on to flights say in Los Angeles arrive in Auckland get off the plane with their firearms and go through the secure areas in the airport etc. which would normally be in violation of the other aspects of this bill which is a bill to improve security. 
So this section 77E which I wish through my amendment to eliminate states that those officers will pass through security-enhanced areas and sterile areas—while also carrying guns and weapons—when they are boarding aircraft and disembarking from aircraft. I think in some ways that this is an even more important amendment than the first one in relation to some of these American inflight security officers in that as we know from some incidents in America—and  
Time 
 magazine had a special article on the subject a year or two ago—there have been all kinds of problems with these armed people. Somebody was actually shot dead. I do not think they have ever attacked a terrorist but they have affected quite a few ordinary Americans. They will be more particularly riding under American rules of engagement which are much looser than ours. So they could be even more of a danger to passengers—New Zealanders coming back on an airline like United Airlines or some New Zealanders going out on such an American craft. So I think this amendment to chop that provision out is very valuable and I urge members to support it. Thank you.
Williamson Maurice: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I do not believe I could do any better than my very first speech. The National Party totally supports this legislation.
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thought that I had covered all the points but I became a bit worried about Peter Brown’s speech when he started to talk about road rage altitude rage or whatever it ended up being described as. I think it was altitude rage as Maurice Williamson said. The member sort of linked that with the Green Party’s objection to having inflight security officers armed. When the member linked that up I became pretty worried because I read all the tittle-tattle in the  
Woman’s Weekly 
 the Sunday papers and whatnot. As I recall matters—and I cannot bring all the names to mind—quite a few of our leading rugby stars and celebrities have been guilty of altitude rage. They have taken a few too many whiskies in first class and done things like that and I am worried about their lives now after listening to Peter Brown’s speech. I think that is an additional reason for the Committee to support my amendment: to make sure that we protect our celebrities and to make sure that we do not arm those police officers who are on aircraft as inflight security people. I think that the watchword of the airline pilots is the best thing. If there is a security problem then we should leave the plane on the ground until there is no security problem. We should not stick an armed inflight security officer on the plane. That is the solution. 
I certainly support the Minister’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 140 about making sure that there is no “unclothed image of the person” in the words of the explanatory note of that Supplementary Order Paper. We support the Supplementary Order Paper in that respect. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 15B.
Bennett David: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Well that was a very enlightening speech from New Zealand First the greatest tyre-kicking party we will ever see in this Parliament. There is not really very much debate about this legislation. As Darien Fenton mentioned today is a very significant day for us to be discussing this legislation this being the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. With that anniversary in mind I think it is a time when we need to reflect—to just take things slowly and to look at what has actually been happening and at the legislation going forward. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the staff who helped in advising us and who are here today. They did a great job in putting this legislation together and we look forward to it working well in the future.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.