edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Chamber—Sound System 
Points of Order — Chamber—Sound System 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
Tuesday 17 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Sound System 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have had work done on the sound system but I tell you that absolutely no noise at all is coming over here other than an echo that is reverberating around the Chamber. Something is actually not working. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we have already notified the persons in charge of it of that fact. Thank you Mr Key.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1788] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 In the few minutes that are available I just want to say that the Maori Party is happy to support the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. Tangata whenua have watched the growth of new technologies with real concern for the way in which intellectual and cultural property rights can so easily be abused. I do not wish to go back over many of the points that have already been made suffice to say that we support them. But in terms of Te Ao Maori our symbols our designs our stories our waiata our writings and our art are all taonga and as such are shared only with those who have the right to them. 
Indeed the current claim before the Waitangi Tribunal the indigenous flora and fauna and Maori intellectual and cultural property claim known as Wai 262 which relates to the protection and ownership of Maori cultural and intellectual property is being keenly watched for the potential it has to create boundaries around language authority and intellectual and cultural property. In our world view our knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. It is not just handed out to any Joe Public or Hohepa in our case. 
It is with that sort of background that the Maori Party is very worried about the increasing problems this bill seems to cover. It is the sort of sneaky feeling that somebody is watching us—that Big Brother phenomenon that has become a hit show for some countries already. In today’s times the so-called new technologies of cellphones cameras and computers have made that feeling a virus that no one would want to be infected by. 
When I look at my own children and their cellphones and the way in which they can take photos of all their mates and record them for posterity I always wonder and marvel at how they can turn their hand to the most complex skills of dexterity with the greatest of ease. But of course it comes with a cost. With the rapid reduction in the size of cellphones people are now able to sneakily film intimate situations where people would normally expect there to be a general standard of privacy. For our part that sort of stuff is not on and we obviously will support this bill. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
Vote: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
[Volume:629;Page:1778] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
[Volume:629;Page:1777] 
Voting 
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to go back to the voting in relation to the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). At the time of the recording of votes for that bill Maori Party members verbally at least expressed their view that they would be voting against that bill. We understand through lack of understanding about the parliamentary process that in order for us to have our votes recorded there is a need to call for a party vote. So for that purpose tonight I seek leave to ask that our votes be recorded against that bill and recorded in  
Hansard  
as such. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 To be helpful I tell the House that I distinctly recall hearing the member speak the votes against the bill at the time of voting even though he did not call for a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. Leave has been sought by the member for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none so it will be done. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 It might be appropriate if we just run the vote again so that the votes for each party can actually be recorded. It allows the Maori Party then to vote against the bill. That is my view. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that is the best way of clearing up the matter so we will recast the vote. Leave has been sought and there is no objection. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
[Volume:629;Page:1777] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 It might be appropriate if we just run the vote again so that the votes for each party can actually be recorded. It allows the Maori Party then to vote against the bill. That is my view. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that is the best way of clearing up the matter so we will recast the vote. Leave has been sought and there is no objection.
Tanczos Nandor: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
Tanczos Nandor: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
[Volume:629;Page:1777] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 To be helpful I tell the House that I distinctly recall hearing the member speak the votes against the bill at the time of voting even though he did not call for a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. Leave has been sought by the member for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none so it will be done.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Voting — Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)—Maori Party Vote 
[Volume:629;Page:1777] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to go back to the voting in relation to the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). At the time of the recording of votes for that bill Maori Party members verbally at least expressed their view that they would be voting against that bill. We understand through lack of understanding about the parliamentary process that in order for us to have our votes recorded there is a need to call for a party vote. So for that purpose tonight I seek leave to ask that our votes be recorded against that bill and recorded in  
Hansard  
as such.
Harawira Hone: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Harawira Hone: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1774] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Maori have an expression that reminds us—Mr Speaker can I just put this off for a minute and defer to Simon and come back in a minute? Raruraru anatakumihini. 
[ 
My machine has malfunctioned. 
] 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to accommodate the member if that is the way he wishes to move. I seek leave accordingly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Could you just repeat that please Mr Speaker? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are just officially doing a change-round for the call. 
Simon Power 
: I can help the Minister. Mr Harawira simply wants the computer to work and in the interim I will make a contribution while we wait for him to get his notes organised. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is no objection.
Paraone Pita: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1774] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
A tena koe Mr Speaker a tenaanotatou o te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us as well of the House. 
] 
I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. First of all I congratulate all those who have spoken on it. I can understand the Minister in his opening speech not taking the full time allocated to him. Other than the Minister all those who have spoken come from the legal profession. Now I can understand why lawyers enjoy speaking although that never ceases to amaze me. We have here tonight a bill that is little more than a one-page piece of legislation yet people have taken a long time to speak about their support or otherwise for it. I just signal that New Zealand First will not take the full time allocated to it. 
This bill amends the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act 1938 and it adds the Supreme Court to the list of New Zealand courts in the legislation. I ask this question of the House particularly in terms of the first sentence of the explanatory note of the bill which states: “The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting is responsible for producing an official series of reports of the key judgments of the higher courts in New Zealand.” I know this question would have been an oversight on the part of my whanaunga from the Maori Party so I will ask it just to jog his memory. Where is the Maori Land Court and in particular the Maori Appellate Court? If I am to consider what is written here that particular court is obviously not considered to be a higher court of New Zealand. 
 However the bill provides for the publication of reports and adds the Supreme Court to the list. The Chief Justice can allow alternative publication of Supreme Court decisions after consulting the New Zealand Law Society and the society can authorise others to publish reports of decisions of the High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court provided that the council has not been timely in the publication of reports or has not published them at a reasonable cost. 
In conclusion I want to ask another question. One cannot presume it will be the case that the reports will be in Maori. I know they will be written in English. But there is no reference to a Maori version and no assurance has been given that the reports will also be written in Maori even though Maori is one of the two official languages of this country. Having said that once again I reaffirm the stance of New Zealand First in supporting the bill and I do so on its behalf.
Fairbrother Russell: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1771] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 That was the author of the  
Mapp Report 
 and that speech was a demonstration as to why it is one report that has a declining circulation. It starts out by indicating that it has some sense of direction with the title  
Mapp Report 
 and it winds to a conclusion that should really be attached at the very beginning because the rest of it just does not carry any substance. One would think after endeavouring to listen to strains of logic that happened to wander into the last speech that this was a bill of some constitutional importance. 
This bill is constitutionally important in only one respect. It brings the decisions of the Supreme Court into the ambit of the official reports—nothing more nothing less. As the last speaker wound his way around his ruminations of constitutional imperfections in this country one tended to lose sight of the role of the official reports. It is important that we keep our eye on the ball in this House and it is particularly important in relation to a simple bill that brings in the reports of our top court—a court that is performing far better than its critics could ever acknowledge—that that court’s decisions which are quite formative in the development of our law be available in the official reports. 
The official reports are quite an interesting concept and all reports as they are published involve some editing. If the editing process has a fountainhead of officialdom then there is some consistency and they can be relied upon. The danger of not including the Supreme Court reports in official publications is that we could get transcripts of the original judgment précis of the judgment and other publishers’ versions of the judgment. We may tend to lose the thread of what is important in the reports and their reliability also diminishes. 
So this bill is a simple mop-up operation to include reports of Supreme Court judgments in the list of official reports. We do not have to go very much further than the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules. Rule 42 “Bundle of authorities” simply states in subclause (3): “If an official report (for example NZLR CLR AC SCR) of a case is available that report is to be used for the bundle of authorities.” 
Hereafter the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 will now include decisions of the Supreme Court or at least those that are significant—no more and no less. We do not need the  
Mapp Report 
 to take us all around the country and to ruminate on the state of our constitution. This bill is a simple piece of legislation to bring the Supreme Court into the ambit of the official reports no more no less and this bill should not tarry any further in its progress through the House.
Paraone Pita: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1765] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to make our contribution to the debate. First off I say that the previous speakers have all contributed to the very points we must agree on. We also agree with some of the concerns that have been expressed. 
This bill amends the Judicature Act of 1908. One of its major intentions is to alleviate the workload pressure put on the Court of Appeal. In so saying I acknowledge the good work this country receives from its judges. I think that New Zealand for its size and for the amount of legislation that emanates from this House is well served by our judges. This bill will ease the pressure on the present number of judges by extending that number. As a result of the many laws we have we will of course need more people to sit in judgment in terms of interpreting those laws and that must lead to timely decisions. As was alluded to by the previous speaker from National having to wait for 12 months and 1 week for a decision is certainly not something that we should condone. In fact I think the delay in making such decisions is denying democracy to the parties that are affected. 
Provisions of the bill include the repeal section 65 of the principal Act which will remove the right of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Clause 7 which covers the leave to appeal inserts new section 67 which will allow a party to a civil proceeding originating in an inferior court and initially appealed to the High Court to apply to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. Given that that is the case and I suspect that the workload for the Court of Appeal will not be eased the need for extra judges will be a prerequisite. 
I want to conclude New Zealand First’s contribution to the debate by making reference to a bill that will come before the House tomorrow. The Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) talks about increasing the number of judges and the bill that will come before the House tomorrow the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill will talk about decreasing the number of members in the House. Perhaps I can tie the two bills up by suggesting that with less legislation there will be a need for fewer judges. If we have fewer lawmakers then perhaps we may be contributing to an easing of the workload that the courts have to deal with. However having said that I know that that will not happen. Perhaps the support for the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) from a number of parties in the House will be an indication of their opposition to the bill that my colleague Barbara Stewart has introduced. In conclusion I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the bill.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1757] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to.
Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1754] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the honourable member Hone Harawira had finished his speech but I just need clarification from you as to the rules of the House. I know that there have been some rule changes in the House but to allow a member simply to stand up and read his speech directly off a laptop without delivering it from the heart from the shoulder as David Lange would have—is that within the Standing Orders today? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. There is a new procedure with the use of laptops. 
RON MARK 
: I thank you for that. That is all I needed; I did not need to be chastised by you.
Pillay Lynne: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1746] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I commend the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House and say what a pleasure it was to work on the bill. We received seven submissions to consider and they were very constructive and well put together and equally we heard four submissions which put a very common-sense case to the committee. 
The key thing about the bill is that it actually builds on the Legal Services Act of 2000 which established the Legal Services Agency. The bill ensures better access to legal representation and therefore better access to justice. The principle of access to justice ought not to depend on a person’s ability to pay and that is very much the view of the Government. The bill updates the criteria for eligibility for legal aid which have not been revised since 1987. The bill also introduces a new repayments and debt - management regime with the end result that more New Zealanders will now qualify for legal aid. The cost of the additional grants will be offset by requiring a higher proportion of legal aid recipients to repay some or all of their grant depending on their ability to make that repayment. 
This is a very constructive bill and I am really proud to stand as the chair of the select committee to speak in favour of it. I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the other members of the committee—my colleagues Russell Fairbrother and Ann Hartley and Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party for their very constructive contributions that were helpful at all times. I also acknowledge the National Party. Although it opposes the bill I take a bit of time to acknowledge Christopher Finlayson. He gave some really constructive and sensible advice during the select committee process and I thank him for that. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Worth that there is an irony in that rates went down for legal aid lawyers under National—and I challenge him to justify that statement—so for him to stand in the House and suddenly become the champion of the legal profession in wanting to ensure those lawyers are properly paid is a bit rich. 
But to return to the key point I say this is a great bill for the Government and for New Zealand. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Question agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1739] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the ACT party to make a contribution to this urgent debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for the member to make a contribution to this debate. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1739] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The time for the debate has concluded.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1731] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am concerned and I want to seek leave for this House to note its concern to the Minister that he has not even bothered to stay in the House to listen to the debate even in respect of his coalition partner. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am entitled to seek leave. I seek leave for this House to pass a motion expressing its concern that the Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows very well that he is not to refer to members being or not being in the House. He knows that very clearly.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1729] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Given the claim made by the Minister of Conservation that in 1999 I interfered in the process I seek leave to table the agreement made between the Whangamata Marina Society and the Department of Conservation in 1998. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1723] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and Gordon Copeland seeking an urgent debate under Standing Order 380 on the decision of the Minister of Conservation to decline consent for a marina at Whangamata and a letter from Judith Collins seeking a debate on the Government’s decision to merge the Department of Child Youth and Family Services with the Ministry of Social Development. Those are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I agree they are important enough to require the immediate attention of the House. 
In these circumstances the Speaker must under Standing Order 382 give priority to the matter that in the Speaker’s opinion is the more urgent and important. In that regard I note that the decision to merge the departments is to be effected by Order in Council in the next 3 months. On the other hand the Minister’s decision is effective now subject to any legal challenge that may be made. I have therefore decided to give priority to the applications relating to the Whangamata marina as they relate to a decision that is already in force. As Dr Smith’s application was received by me first I call upon him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1723] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify a technical point in relation to my answer to question No. 10 to Simon Power. I answered that the collaborative working arrangements were in place. They are in place but they have not been finally signed off.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1721] 
11.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will New Zealand support the right of States to have full information about any genetically engineered organisms traded across their boundaries at the third meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol taking place in Brazil this week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
:  
New Zealand supports meaningful and informative labelling of GMOs. We think it is important to have simple practical workable and implementable documentation requirements. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister saying then that New Zealand is now moving away from its former position that living genetically engineered organisms being traded for use in food feed or processing should be labelled with the words “may contain GMOs” which was against the wishes of the majority of parties to the convention which desired that the labels would state “does contain GMOs” and can we take it that New Zealand will no longer block consensus on that issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No we are not changing our position. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why will New Zealand not support the inclusion of adventitious presence as a trigger for documentation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because that would mean that all normal or conventional agricultural shipments even of organics would have to be labelled “may contain living modified organisms” because of the remote possibility they might have come into contact with living modified organisms. That clearly would also be a potential non-tariff barrier for food-importing countries to use. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How does the Minister justify New Zealand’s position of requiring full disclosure of GE crops at our own borders while denying developing countries which may not have the financial or human resources to test for themselves the protection of an international disclosure regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not deny countries that kind of access to a regime. We are fully in support of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. What we do not accept is that that protocol means what some people claim it means. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will he refute the allegation made by other parties to the convention that New Zealand is acting as a stalking horse for the United States—which is not a party to the convention—by doing what his officials have so far refused to do and telling this House and the New Zealand public now the reason for our position that GMOs traded across the border do not need to be labelled to state that they do contain GMOs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This Government does not act as a stalking horse for the United States in any matter at all.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1720] 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What has been the Government’s response to the result of the 1999 citizens’ initiated referendum regarding the size of the House of Representatives? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government referred this issue to the MMP Review Committee that was established in April 2000 to undertake a review of MMP. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that fewer than 54 percent of electors in 1993 voted for a change of the electoral system whereas in 1999 over 81 percent voted to reduce the number of MPs and will the Government support my member’s bill to a select committee to find out whether public opinion on this matter is as clear as it was in 1999? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member compares apples with pears—a binding referendum with a non-binding referendum—and draws a lot of assumptions from those pieces of information. But I regret to inform the member that no the Government will not be supporting the member’s bill. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will his Government consider holding another referendum on this issue if it is consigned to the fact that it will not allow my bill to reach a select committee so that the public can actually have their say on this? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We need to be a bit clear here. As you have said in the past people wear different hats at different times. In asking whether Mr Burton’s Government will be supporting the member’s bill as the member has is she implying in some way that she has nothing to do with this Government? We know in fact that of course New Zealand First is very much a part of the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a fair question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry that is not a point of order. Does the member wish to make another point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I think you should ask that the question be put in a clearer fashion because to imply that New Zealand First has nothing to do with the Government is quite wrong. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have to make the point to the member who raised the point of order that Barbara Stewart the member who asked the question is not a member of the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is correct. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can tell the member that there is no such proposal on the Government’s current work programme.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1715] 
5.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What actions have police taken to address the problem of youth gangs in the South Auckland area? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In the last few months the police have been working closely with the South Auckland community other Government agencies—especially the Ministry of Social Development—and non-governmental organisations on strategies focused on enforcement community engagement and prevention. There has been a reduction in all forms of youth gang activity across the region with no notable incidents being recorded since this process was put in place. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What meetings has the Minister held recently to discuss gang issues? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Last week I held meetings with the Wanganui police and Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws to discuss a recent gang issue in that city. Mr Laws is very supportive of the rapid response of police to the recent problems and he is also very keen to work with the police and the Government to prevent future problems from arising. He realises that the police cannot do it all on their own. To quote Mr Laws: “With more police tougher by-laws and the strengthened Proceeds of Crime Act there is light at the end of the tunnel.” 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree with New Zealand First when it says that the Government should pass legislation to outlaw gangs; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because I do not believe it is feasible or possible to outlaw them. What we can do is ensure that they have the least possible impact on the community by good policing community involvement and the sorts of strategies that have been put in place. But to say that if we outlaw them by law that will happen is I think dreaming.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Ireland—Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Ireland—Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland 
[Volume:629;Page:1707] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon EamonO’Cuiv Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chamber. 
Hon EamonO’Cuiv accompanied by the Hon Damien O’Connor entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Ireland—Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland 
Visitors — Ireland—Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland 
[Volume:629;Page:1707] 
Tuesday 14 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Ireland—Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon EamonO’Cuiv Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs of the Dail Parliament of Ireland is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chamber. 
Hon EamonO’Cuiv accompanied by the Hon Damien O’Connor entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Harawira Hone: Voting — Correction 
Harawira Hone: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:630;Page:2128] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Earlier I forgot to record a couple of votes for the ACT party. I seek leave to have those votes recorded. It was for the third reading of the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and it was two votes opposed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The new result on that vote is Ayes 109 Noes 2 and there were 10 abstentions.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2127] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2127] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2127] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2126] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Swain Paul: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2125] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2123] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Because I am sure the debate on Part 1 is coming to a close given the amount of repetition we are hearing a brief wrapping-up statement from me is perhaps appropriate. 
Notwithstanding the numerous speeches we have heard from members opposite what they all amount to is that overall they think the bill contains a number of useful and positive measures dealing with the redesign of the financial eligibility criteria and a range of other details.  
The one thing we have heard members opposite tell us repeatedly ad nauseam that they are unhappy with is the $165 an hour maximum rate. I draw that to the attention of Opposition members because—as Mr Mark invited them to do last night—if we are to have any useful debate on that point they should at least introduce into the debate their alternative rate so that we can understand what the consequences would be of what they are saying. Otherwise it is pointless rhetoric. 
I invite Dr Worth to look back at what the National Government did when it was given the opportunity. In 1998 it put the rates up and in 1999 it put them back down to where they had been. So when that member comes here and sheds crocodile tears about the rates it is a bit difficult to take. 
I simply say that this bill will progress. The question is whether members opposite will join us in advancing worthwhile positive legislation and accept that there will be further opportunities to discuss the issue of rates of reimbursement. I suggest to them that it would be far more useful to get on with this and enact the legislation. I am happy to engage with them later about the issue. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What does later mean? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Once we have this legislation in place and bedded in we can look at its implications and consequences. Then it will be appropriate to review a range of matters to do with the legislation including reimbursement and hourly rates.
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Burton Mark: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2120] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2117] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have been challenged to answer a few questions so I thought I should take the call. It is not often that one is the centre of the debate in this way and I welcome the serious questions that have been asked. Of course the Greens are for good trade opportunities and for giving poorer countries the opportunity to trade. The member presents the Green position as being somehow very far out of step but I outline arguments that as Tim Groser rightly put it were popular a few years ago. 
I am not saying necessarily that all the arguments the National Party and Labour Party argued in the 1970s or early 1980s—if that is what Mr Groser was referring to—were correct but there was quite a consensus then that we could have trade expanded trade and expanding trade alongside a level of tariffs. The level of tariffs would be set to suit one’s own society and it would take into account relative advantage and disadvantage with other countries. 
One of the factors for relative disadvantage is the lower wage rates in other countries. In China of course wages are much lower than in New Zealand so a certain tariff imposed on products from China does not necessarily stop an expansion of trade from China to New Zealand particularly as that country becomes more efficient in producing its products as it has done. 
One of the problems is that if tariffs are dropped too rapidly or major free-trade agreements are entered into one starts hollowing out one’s manufacturing base. That has happened in New Zealand and it is one of the reasons why we have a record $7 billion trade deficit. It is why many good New Zealand clothing companies and leisure product companies are now sending their production to China. We are hollowing out our skills base in manufacturing particularly in the clothing textile and footwear industries. So our great fashion designers who are major exporters to the world now—not necessarily in dollar terms yet but they are exporting significantly for a growing industry—sometimes cannot find the skilled people who would have been available years ago to sew up their clothes in the way they would like. The skills base has dropped. 
That is all that the Greens are arguing. It is not a particularly radical position. In some ways it is a conservative position to go back to Tim Groser’s analysis. Rather than having an ideological position—that is the free-trade position where we just wipe the tariffs and everything will be all right and everyone will be winners—our position is a practical one that looks at what can expand our trade and the trade of countries like China in a way that suits the interests of both countries. That is all we are proposing.
Hughes Darren: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2117] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:630;Page:2128] 
Voting 
Correction 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Earlier I forgot to record a couple of votes for the ACT party. I seek leave to have those votes recorded. It was for the third reading of the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and it was two votes opposed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The new result on that vote is Ayes 109 Noes 2 and there were 10 abstentions.
Yates Dianne: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2112] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker Eric Roy for his comments and I also look forward to members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee speaking on the bill because some of those questions could be answered by the members of the select committee who realise that it was agreed at the beginning of this year that 1 May would be the day when the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement would be signed by the parties involved. That is why the select committee has been focused on getting the bill back to the House in a timely fashion. 
I point out that the commentary is actually only one paragraph long. The commentary on the national interest analysis is pages long and that is what the previous speaker was talking about as being quite bulky. The national interest analysis was compiled after extensive consultation throughout New Zealand with parties interested in this particular agreement. Because the consultation was so good and held over a considerable period of time the select committee that looked at the national interest analysis could deal with the bill so quickly. I thank the members of the committee for getting the bill back to the House in a timely fashion. 
As we have said the bill is about only two pages long. It amends the Tariff Act of 1988 to enable the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement to come into law. It is the final part of the complete agreement stage that we are now dealing with prior to the final signature. Once again I thank all the parties and members who were involved—those who were involved with the national interest analysis those who were involved with the consultation those who made submissions to the select committee when we looked at that analysis and the select committee members for working together across parties so satisfactorily.
Hughes Darren: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2110] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one debate across the five clauses with one question at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2109] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.