edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5600] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5599] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
te Heuheu Georgina: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5591] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I just want to add some comments as well to the very fine comments that my colleagues Pansy Wong and Lindsay Tisch have made. Of course National supports this legislation just as all the submitters and those who came to the select committee did. All of us including those who look to make investments in the communications sector need to see the understanding of the Government and certainty and stability in the regulatory framework that surrounds the communications sector. We certainly support this bill and the comments made by my colleagues Pansy Wong and Lindsay are also certainly supported. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Securities Amendment Bill the Securities Markets Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill  
divided into Securities Amendment Bill Securities Markets Amendment Bill Takeovers Amendment Bill Fair Trading Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper58. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Tisch Lindsay: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5590] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This is important legislation and my colleague Pansy Wong has articulated the importance of bringing confidence back into the market. For those small investors in our capital markets—the mums and dads and the individuals—and of course the institutional investors who want to have confidence in the market and in the integrity of the market that is what this bill is about. 
A number of speakers have spoken to the parts of the bill and I know that my colleague Mr Tim Groser played a very important part during the Committee stage. He was able to crystallise and articulate the importance of this legislation and tell us what it is about. But there are some reservations of course. Although we can say that there will be confidence in the markets and that the legislation needs to bring back the integrity that we all look for I ask whether the Government can be trusted to keep its hands out of it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member opposite says “Yes” but we have seen plenty of examples where if something does not go the Government’s way what does it do? 
Hon Member 
: Sack the commissioner. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well there is the chairman of the Electricity Commission for example. Reading back on the reports when this bill was being looked at in the previous debate on its Committee stage I ask what was happening. At the same time that the Government was talking about integrity in the market Mr Hemmingway got the boot. 
So although we are supporting this legislation because we think it sends the right signals we have to be very careful that when things do not go the Government’s way it does not get out its sticky fingers and start changing the process. However when we look at the confidence and at the integrity that all investors are looking for big or small then for those reasons National is supporting this legislation.
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5590] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a second call in this part of the debate on the Securities Legislation Bill. National is happy to support the speedy passage of the bill. One of the complaints we have about the bill’s passage is the length of time the Labour Government let the bill sit on the Order Paper when out in the public there is great demand for example for increased confidence in the capital markets by the increased disclosure of financial advisers. The bill also deals with the restructure of the current insider trading regime and amends the current substantial security holders’ disclosure regime. 
I particularly want to ask why in light of the number of collapses of financial companies out in the market and given that the National Party is prepared to cooperate fully with the passage of this legislation the Labour Government has chosen to let this bill sit so long on the Order Paper. We learnt for example in the case of the collapse of Provincial Finance that when that company withdrew its prospectus for investment $9.5 million of investors’ money continued to go into that company. That called into question the competency and diligence of the advice some of the financial advisers had offered in the market. 
But after saying all this we are not confident that the passage of this legislation will achieve its objective of improving investors’ confidence in the capital markets. The reasons are very simple: the Labour Government continues to go down the track of not knowing what it is doing. It keeps on interfering sacking commissioners that the Government itself has appointed—like the chairman of the Electricity Commission—and interfering in the operation of private enterprise. Without clear legislation and a vision for the future of major industry and infrastructure issues—without this type of clear Government direction—and with the constant interference of Government in the working of the markets and its tinkering in the legislation the confidence of investors in the capital markets cannot be inspired. 
 So even though the Governor of the Reserve Bank continues to call on investors to diversify their investment away from the housing market I am afraid that until the Labour Government stops interfering and stops sending out conflicting messages I am not too sure that the objective of this bill will be able to inspire confidence. Nonetheless this bill will go some way towards clarifying and requiring the greater disclosure of financial advice. For that National is happy to support it.
Dyson Ruth: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Dyson Ruth: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:634;Page:5586] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 In answer to a supplementary question on question No. 9 from Pita Sharples I inadvertently implied that I may have received advice on the fisheries issue from the chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana. The question was in two parts: the first related to representation from iwi and the second related to representation from the chairman. I answered “Yes”. Therefore my answer may have inadvertently implied that I had received representation from the chairman. That is not correct. Neither I nor my other colleagues received any representation from the chairman. The representation we received was in fact from the general manager policy and operations from Te Ohu Kai Moana. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for the correction.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:634;Page:5586] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 In answer to a supplementary question on question No. 9 from Pita Sharples I inadvertently implied that I may have received advice on the fisheries issue from the chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana. The question was in two parts: the first related to representation from iwi and the second related to representation from the chairman. I answered “Yes”. Therefore my answer may have inadvertently implied that I had received representation from the chairman. That is not correct. Neither I nor my other colleagues received any representation from the chairman. The representation we received was in fact from the general manager policy and operations from Te Ohu Kai Moana. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for the correction.
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5571] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise briefly to support the first reading of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. As has been said the bill is based on the principle that no one should profit from his or her own wrongdoing. That is a settled principle of New Zealand law. It is a principle that the bill will follow and that in my view deserves support. Obviously despite that principle—as the previous speaker mentioned—there can be uncertainties as to how the principle ought to be applied in certain cases. We have seen numerous examples through the courts of time-wasting time-consuming and costly litigation as a result of uncertainties around the application of the principle. 
 As the Minister said numerous homicide cases are domestic—I think that the figure was up to about half of them. So the issue of profiting through murder—for example through inheritance—is very pertinent. The bill seeks to codify the law that prevents a killer from inheriting his or her victim’s estate. This will reduce the number and scope of disputes over victims’ estates and that principle deserves support. 
I just want to add one other matter. I attended the Law Commission’s 20th anniversary seminar on 25 August. One of the matters raised there was the need for the Law Commission’s recommendations and reports not to be ignored by this House or by Parliament itself in general. The point was made that often—as Mr Finlayson has said in respect of an earlier bill—law reform matters are seen as lawyers’ law. They do not grab headlines. They are not something that often the general public is drawn to consider but the draft bills appended to Law Commission reports are usually important technical legislation. They almost invariably follow a long and considered process whereby experts in the area consider the issues at stake and come to a considered view as to what the law should be. 
It is good in my view to see that Law Commission proposals are now being advanced through Parliament. This bill is one as the Minister mentioned earlier. The Law Commission has been consulted extensively over the provisions of this bill and the earlier bill to which the Minister referred is also the product of a Law Commission recommendation. It is a good thing from the point of view of our democracy and our constitution that we make proper use of the Law Commission and its considered law reform processes and that we advance recommendations through Parliament in an orderly way. It is a good thing to hear that this bill may well have at least in principle bipartisan support. That is the sort of support that usually ought to be accorded measures on which the Law Commission has been consulted. I commend the bill and the process.
Woolerton R Doug: Wills Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Wills Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5563] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Wills Bill going to a select committee. I am pleased to be following Chris Finlayson. I thought that if anybody could give some elucidation to this matter and find something of interest it would be him and so it proved to be. For a thumbnail sketch of the history of wills I do not think we could have done better and I congratulate him on his speech. I thought he stretched the point a bit when he said that some people would find it boring. I do not know how he could possibly say that. At times during his speech I actually thought I saw the Minister in charge Clayton Cosgrove getting overly excited and that is not a pretty sight. 
New Zealand First is in favour of anything that makes the law simpler more modern and easier to understand. It comes as much as a surprise to me as it does to anybody else but I actually have a daughter who is a lawyer—God bless her soul. She is taking a year off at the present time but returning to the law in the new year. She gave me less confidence in the profession when we were talking about a relative’s will where it may go and what may happen to it. She said: “Never mind dad there’s probably not a will that I couldn’t overturn with a half reasonable excuse.” So my faith in the solemn activity of making out a will just went right down the drain at that point. But at least this bill does something about making wills more modern. It brings into play the new marriage laws and that sort of thing and New Zealand First is in favour of that.
Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5560] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. The bill is important—it recognises the necessity the rights and in fact the responsibilities of people to make arrangements for their family friends and property when they die. The Wills Bill is not a radical bill at all. It does not radically reform existing law relating to wills but makes it easier for people to understand. The aim of the bill is to restate the existing law into a single statute in plain modern language that is both clear and accessible. 
I know that the Law Commission has been acknowledged but I want to do that again. The background is that in 1997 the Law Commission reviewed the wills legislation which currently comprises six statutes as part of a wider review of general succession law. It recommended restating and modernising the law into a single statute and modernising the law of wills in certain minor respects. The changes to the legislation that have been made from the recommendations bring it up to date with modern New Zealand—if I can use that term—and take into account certain developments such as de facto and civil union relationships that have occurred since the report was published in 1997. As the previous speaker said the bill also removes the minimum age at which a person may make a will and those aged under 18 will be able to make a will if they are intending to marry or enter a civil union. 
I commend the Minister Clayton Cosgrove for bringing this bill to the House and the Law Commission for the work it did. As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I look forward to working with the committee and hearing submissions in order to make sure that we return the bill to the House with recommendations so that it is in the best order possible. Thank you.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
[Volume:634;Page:5557] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 On that basis I then seek leave to table the decision of Judge Fogarty which finds that Chris Carter breached the law in the decision he made on the Whangamata marina. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that decision. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
[Volume:634;Page:5557] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the High Court on 18 September 2006 regarding the decision of the Minister of Conservation on 7 March this year to refuse to grant two coastal permits required for the restricted coastal activities for the proposed marina at Whangamata. The Minister’s decision is not a case of recent occurrence. The decision of the High Court is a matter of recent occurrence but there is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court. The application is therefore declined. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I accept your ruling but it is a very serious matter when the High Court of New Zealand finds that the Minister of Conservation breached process quite seriously so I wish to seek the leave of the House for a debate in respect of the decision by Judge Fogarty that the decision by Mr Carter was unlawful. My expectation is that the debate would be in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 On that basis I then seek leave to table the decision of Judge Fogarty which finds that Chris Carter breached the law in the decision he made on the Whangamata marina. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that decision. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
[Volume:634;Page:5557] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I accept your ruling but it is a very serious matter when the High Court of New Zealand finds that the Minister of Conservation breached process quite seriously so I wish to seek the leave of the House for a debate in respect of the decision by Judge Fogarty that the decision by Mr Carter was unlawful. My expectation is that the debate would be in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation Minister—Whangamata Marina Decision 
[Volume:634;Page:5557] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the High Court on 18 September 2006 regarding the decision of the Minister of Conservation on 7 March this year to refuse to grant two coastal permits required for the restricted coastal activities for the proposed marina at Whangamata. The Minister’s decision is not a case of recent occurrence. The decision of the High Court is a matter of recent occurrence but there is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court. The application is therefore declined.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5554] 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What work does the Government have under way to improve access to elective surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I announced last week that the Labour-led Government will invest $200 million more over 4 years to provide elective surgery to an additional 10000 New Zealanders each year. In addition the Government’s historic health capital investment will see the opening of 22 additional operating theatres over the next 4 years. This sort of investment is possible only when a Government puts the health of families above reckless unaffordable tax cuts. 
Maryan Street 
: Will more funding alone be adequate to deliver the extra surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it will not. That is why this Government is implementing a programme of elective surgery policy reform alongside its investment of $200 million. These reforms will see district health boards being able to pay general practitioners to perform minor surgery will mandate the setting of clear targets for increased delivery and will involve clinicians closely in determining ways to make better use of our operating theatres.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5538] 
1.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the cost of the business tax cuts that came into effect on 1 April this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The total cost of these tax cuts is over $1.1 billion over 4 years. This represents the largest cut to business taxes since the late 1980s. There were no significant cuts to business taxes in the 1990s. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen on alternative costings of these tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report stating: “No no no Labour has not reduced a single tax in 7 years.” Dismissing over $1 billion in tax cuts in this way is rather remarkable for a former Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that tomorrow the Government will be announcing a record surplus—a surplus that after accounting changes will be in excess of $10 billion—and having now produced surpluses of over $20 billion in the last 3 years alone can he understand why the public of New Zealand are getting fed up with his excuses for not delivering tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member who has spent much of the last 2 weeks boasting overseas that he will be the next leader of the National Party has forgotten that his own leader only last Friday talked about incremental tax changes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister of Finance remember the Budget of 1998 when $1.1 billion of personal taxes were part of that Budget and does he recall that it was not a National but a New Zealand First Treasurer who did that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I well recall that fact. I also remember that in 1999 a National Government without New Zealand First legislated for tax cuts then had to cut New Zealand superannuation to pay for them.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member did speak at great length to his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But I think it is reasonable to say that we did ask for it to be released in time for that to be done— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understood and I thank the member for his very full point of order and his statement of his concerns. I assure him that I did not receive the final report until Thursday evening and I received the direction on Friday. As the member also is aware the Auditor-General issued an advisory that he and the Speaker had mutually agreed that both reports will be tabled on Thursday.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly the report and the response are matters of some considerable significance. Therefore it might be helpful to members if they had some 5 days before making a formal response instead of as implied by Mr Brownlee’s argument responding before they have read the report very carefully. Indeed the Government itself will have to consider its response to those reports in case there is any need for remedial action. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order—
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether National members could ask you to reconsider that matter. If you were to persist with that particular course of action then of course Parliament itself would not be able to express any opinion on those reports until Tuesday of next week allowing some 5 days to pass in which there could be any amount of consideration by the media by any other commentators and in fact by individual parties as well to get their particular point across. This is an issue that reflects upon the integrity of the entire Parliament not just one or two political parties. I think it would be appropriate if Parliament itself could choose to have an expression of views on those reports much sooner than that date. 
I note that tomorrow is a members’ day—a day on which Parliament is in charge of its own time if one likes—and it seems to me that it would be most appropriate in this week if those reports could be released tomorrow well ahead of time in order that such a debate might be facilitated tomorrow afternoon. We note Madam Speaker that the information we have received—and you may wish to correct me on this—is that you have had some weeks to consider your response to the report. Therefore we feel that by Parliament being prevented this week from having a view on it the integrity of Parliament is left hanging for an entire 5 days. Then of course it becomes a matter of whether you would consider it to be of such importance after such a period of time for Parliament even to have that debate. You may wish to give us some guidance and consider the request we have made for that early release tomorrow.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will of course be aware that there is a great deal of public interest in the impending report of the Auditor-General and your own response to that report. Can you confirm Madam Speaker that it is your intention at this stage to table both of those reports in the House at the appropriate time for the tabling of papers after 2 p.m. on Thursday? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes Mr Brownlee I can confirm that.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Scottish Parliament—Minister of Parliamentary Business 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Scottish Parliament—Minister of Parliamentary Business 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Ms Margaret Curran MSP Minister of Parliamentary Business in the Scottish Parliament is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Scottish Parliament—Minister of Parliamentary Business 
Visitors — Scottish Parliament—Minister of Parliamentary Business 
[Volume:634;Page:5537] 
Tuesday 10 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Scottish Parliament—Minister of Parliamentary Business 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Ms Margaret Curran MSP Minister of Parliamentary Business in the Scottish Parliament is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5696] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill or a “Waste of Time Bill”. The bill proposed by the member for Nelson is unnecessary reactionary and a waste of valuable parliamentary time. The bill proposed is just one more example of his continued opposition to the Resource Management Act and its mechanisms for environmental sustainability community participation and quality of life for all New Zealanders. The member for Nelson is constitutionally incapable of understanding or appreciating the human value of those things not to mention the dollar value of sustainable environmental practices and of New Zealand’s clean green image. Therefore the idea of a balanced approach to development is an anathema to him. 
The list of lies and misleading statements about the Resource Management Act made by Opposition members makes long and sorry reading. Just a couple of months ago Maurice Williamson stated National’s real desire: to tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act. Dr Smith has bleated on about the need for changes to the Resource Management Act that have already been made by the Government but that he pretends have not happened. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5693] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 50; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Turei Metiria: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5688] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I take just a very short call on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill to say the Green Party will be supporting it going through to the select committee but we certainly make no promises from that point on. We are interested in exploring the issues. It is true that some councils are able to meet their deadlines on a more regular basis—Hamilton is one example but it is an extreme and a single one—whereas other councils completely fail to meet the expectations in the legislation. So we do need to have a look at the issue because it is very difficult for ordinary people wanting to undertake building in their own homes—domestic types of building as opposed to development—and it not fair that they then have to suffer the consequences. 
So we are prepared to have a look at it. That is all we are prepared to offer at this stage and we will see what happens in the select committee. It is worthwhile discussing the bill. It is worthwhile giving people an opportunity to have their say and to tell the committee and parliamentarians what they think about these issues. We will see what happens after that. Thank you.
Stewart Barbara: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5687] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee with no guarantee that we will support it any further than that. We are very aware that very few things in life are free and building consents certainly are not amongst them. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry. When there are interjections across the House and the speaker is standing down there it is impossible to hear. I ask members to be quiet. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: If the user does not pay for a building consent then we can be absolutely certain that other ratepayers will. Once again we have a bill before us in this House that promises far more than it can actually deliver. We have a bill that again deals with subjects about which there is considerable public feeling. Once again we are faced with the dilemma of sending a flawed bill to a select committee finding a better alternative for dealing with the issues or not accepting that there are any public concerns. 
New Zealand First acknowledges that there is public and industry discontent and that there are perceptions that there are unnecessary delays in processing building consents. We note Hamilton City Council has a scheme similar to that proposed here with—as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said—a 6-day turn-around process. However there are very serious problems with the envisaged regime. We have a concern that some authorities may be encouraged to find innovative ways to restart the consents process clock or that the quality of the decision making may suffer—and I know the Minister has alluded to that. We do not want there to be another round of leaky buildings. The bill overlooks some of the fundamental reasons for the current delays one of which appears to be a serious shortage of trained staff. That problem is not easily rectified. We are very aware too that recent legislation such as the Building Act of 2004 may have exacerbated the problem by adding to the confusion around that particular issue. 
New Zealand First sees some very serious shortcomings in this bill and is unconvinced that such a narrow focus could contribute very much to improved outcomes. But we acknowledge the public’s concern and we will therefore support the referral of this bill to the select committee so that the public can have some input on this particular issue. Thank you.
Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5686] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the associated historic reports that will be on archive—and the  
Hansard 
 of course—which will prove that the National Party abolished the Apprenticeship Act which Mr Smith is in historical denial over. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5685] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I wish to seek leave to table a document. The member claimed and I know that he is a junior Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well the member needs to name the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I wish to table the speech of Mr George Hawkins who claimed that the building reforms of 1991 were all from Labour’s good work from the late 1980s and that National could claim no credit for them. I think it is important. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table the report from the Hamilton City Council which has adopted this very policy has been able to provide for all its building consents within the statutory time frame without any cost to the ratepayer and is providing a very high quality of building consent services. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Choudhary Ashraf: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5678] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I take a very brief call in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Mr Roy has very ably explained this bill which is very important. Given the fact that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association is an asset-rich organisation but does not have the resources to actually maintain its grounds I think it is important that the House should support this bill. I also want to say as deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee that as part of the process of calling for submissions and deliberating on the bill we did not receive any submissions on it. Further I say that Wayne Harpur the local candidate for the Labour Party at the last election is also very supportive of this bill. I am delighted to support the bill and it has been supported by the select committee as well.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5676] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 46 
Anderton (P) 
Dean  
King C (P) 
Tremain (P) 
Auchinvole (P) 
Donnelly (P) 
Mapp  
Turner (P) 
Bennett D  
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Wagner  
Blue  
English  
Paraone (P) 
Wilkinson   
Borrows  
Field (P) 
Peachey (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Brown (P) 
Foss (P) 
Peters (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie (P) 
Robertson   
Carter D (P) 
Groser (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Guy (P) 
Smith N (P) 
Clarkson (P) 
Hawkins  
Stewart  
Coleman  
Heatley (P) 
Swain (P) 
Collins (P) 
Hutchison   
Tisch  
Teller: 
Copeland   
Key (P) 
Tolley (P) 
E Roy 
Noes 73 
Barker (P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Barnett (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Jones  
Roy H (P) 
Bennett P  
Fairbrother (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Samuels  
Benson-Pope (P) 
Fenton (P) 
King A (P) 
Sharples   
Beyer (P) 
Finlayson   
Laban (P) 
Simich  
Blumsky  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke  
Smith L (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Flavell  
Mackey  
Tanczos (P) 
Brash  
Gallagher (P) 
Maharey (P) 
te Heuheu   
Burton (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goodhew  
Mallard (P) 
Turei  
Chadwick   
Gosche (P) 
McCully (P) 
Turia (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Harawira   
Moroney  
Wilson (P) 
Choudhary   
Hartley (P) 
O'Connor (P) 
Wong (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hayes  
Okeroa (P) 
Worth (P) 
Connell (P) 
Henare  
Parker (P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hereora  
Pettis (P) 
Cullen  
Hide (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Power  
Teller: 
Dalziel (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich (P) 
Hughes 
Motion not agreed to.
Blumsky Mark: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Blumsky Mark: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5673] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I just wanted to explain and I thought the House understood because I have talked about Winston on many occasions— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You were patting him. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
:—that I have a little dog called Winston that I walk regularly through town. If the member kept up with the play he would know that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you; that clears that up.
Brown Peter: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5673] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat said that he was in the red-light district on several occasions with a chap called Winston. The perception is—and this is a serious point of order—that if he was in the red-light district with a person called Winston the public would take that to be Winston Peters. I think the member should clarify that because we really know he was with Johnny Walker or Jim Beam the people who pushed him off the stairs. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has had his say. That was not a point of order at all.
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the House 
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5652] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be read a second and third time to be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches and that notwithstanding Standing Order 292 the second and third readings be set down as private and local order of the day No. 2 today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5652] 
Business of the House 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be read a second and third time to be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches and that notwithstanding Standing Order 292 the second and third readings be set down as private and local order of the day No. 2 today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5633] 
11.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the benefits of breastfeeding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have received many reports that the breastfeeding of children leads to significant health benefits. For example children who are breastfed are less likely to suffer from a wide range of infectious diseases and allergies are more likely to have better cognitive development better visual acuity and so on. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has he received any reports on the intersecting benefits of breastfeeding for the health and immigration systems? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Perhaps surprisingly I have. I have received a report that reads as follows: “British immigrants fit in here very well. My own ancestry is all British. New Zealand values are British values derived from centuries of struggles since the Magna Carta. Those things make New Zealand the society it is. So people who bring in these values because they imbibe them with their mother’s milk almost by definition make good immigrants.” This report comes from Dr Don Brash who apparently believes that more white women should be encouraged to breastfeed their children. Let me assure Dr Brash that there is no evidence as yet that the spirit of the Magna Carta can be transmitted through breast milk. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a number of pressing issues in the health sector—from industrial relations through to falling hospital access. That is work the Minister of Health should have been working on this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a number of documents. Is there any objection? There is.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5615] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she her Ministers or any member of her ministerial staff met with the Controller and Auditor-General in relation to his inquiry into election advertising; if so what was the purpose of those meetings? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have had no such meetings with the Auditor-General nor have Ministers or staff met with him in their ministerial or portfolio-related capacities. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 23 September that for the Controller and Auditor-General to report exercising his Controller’s function would be “an inappropriate use of the Controller’s power” and what is her response to the fact that Mr Brady has done exactly that anyway? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: How the Controller and Auditor-General chooses to report is entirely a matter for his judgment. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What influence was the Prime Minister seeking to have when she responded to the draft finding of the Controller and Auditor-General that Labour’s pledge card had been unlawfully paid for from her parliamentary budget by stating that “He has a serious credibility problem.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have constantly drawn attention to the need for fairness consistency and natural justice and pointed out that even political parties are entitled to that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What did the Prime Minister mean when she said in the  
Dominion Post 
 of 22 September that the Controller and Auditor-General needed to “go back to the drawing board.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Auditor-General put up draft views which the National Party leaked. No doubt he has been considering his views since then. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in Kevin Brady as Controller and Auditor-General; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not my position to express judgment one way or another on a man who I understand is an Officer of Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Report 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5615] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday we did ask you about the prospect of the Auditor-General’s report and your response to it being released to this Parliament prior to 2 o’clock tomorrow in order that Parliament might take a view on that matter prior to the closure of the week. Do you intend giving us any indication of that today Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reports will be tabled tomorrow at 2 o’clock.
Points of Order — Auditor-General—Report 
Points of Order — Auditor-General—Report 
[Volume:634;Page:5615] 
Wednesday 11 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Auditor-General—Report 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday we did ask you about the prospect of the Auditor-General’s report and your response to it being released to this Parliament prior to 2 o’clock tomorrow in order that Parliament might take a view on that matter prior to the closure of the week. Do you intend giving us any indication of that today Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reports will be tabled tomorrow at 2 o’clock.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5936] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Duynhoven Harry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5932] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in light of the comments made by the ACT member Heather Roy who preceded Mr Brown in speaking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In connection with what? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: To do with matters regarding citizenship that were raised in the House and were the subject of legislation. It is quite clear that the House does not understand what happened and why. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has asked for leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection— 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have a point of order on the floor at the moment. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You are a disgrace Nick Smith—an absolute disgrace. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re the one who had retrospective legislation twice.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5914] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Report adopted.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5914] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.