edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1531] 
5.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can she confirm whether her Government still plans to fully fund the essential services of non-governmental organisations by 2012; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We are currently working through the Budget process. In these tough economic times and with a number of unfunded promises from the previous Government we have to set priorities. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations which stated that the money allocated by the Labour Government through the Pathways to Partnership scheme would have provided a major boost to its on-the-ground services and helped with managing the impact of the recession on communities; if so why does she not stop hiding behind reviews and give those services the money they need now because people need help now? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are currently working through the Budget process. Nothing is in and nothing is out and the sector will be consulted. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why then did the COmVOiceS network of leading community organisations describe the Government as failing to engage with the sector about how to deal with the recession? Was it because the Government did not invite them or many other representatives from the non-profit sector to its Job Summit last week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do value the sector’s views. In fact yesterday I wrote to sector representatives to invite them to join an unprecedented dialogue with the Government. We are inviting them to sit alongside us as we enter Budget negotiations and to have direct input into the process. For all Labour’s rhetoric about being close to the sector it would never have given those representatives a seat at the table. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Minister honour the commitment made by John Key and Judith Collins during the election campaign to provide additional funding of $5 million for health camps; if so when? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are currently working through the Budget process. Nothing is necessarily in and most certainly nothing is necessarily out. That will be part of our discussions.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1530] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a document. I will just mention the different parts of it in one go rather than take several bites at it. They are comments from Rob Fyfe Fran O’Sullivan Brian Gaynor Grant Spencer and Gareth Morgan and are sourced from various areas including transcripts from Radio New Zealand and news media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I just be clear that this is a composite document the member has prepared from press releases. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a document. In each case the source is given and in each case the person quoted says that the Government was on the wrong track— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition. Leave is sought to table a composite document made up of a set of press releases. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1530] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In relation to question No. 2 I seek leave to table a document. It is the executive summary of the report of the Australian Treasury from October 2008 which states: “The Treasury’s modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have a reasonable description of the document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)  Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)  Amendment Bill 
[Volume:652;Page:1538] 
Voting 
Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)  Amendment Bill 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave for the votes cast in my name on 19 February on the first reading and subsequent referral of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to be altered from being recorded with the Noes to being recorded with the Ayes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. The correct result of the two votes is now Ayes 111 and Noes 9.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2230] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended and the remaining amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment as amended and remaining amendments agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2230] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 154 as amended and the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2229] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I indeed intend to talk specifically to Part 2 because previously I had—unfortunately—been unable to finish what I was focusing on due to running out of time. I turn the Committee’s attention to Subpart 6 “Role of police” in Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This issue is what I was addressing a little earlier and I want to highlight the specific fact that it is in Part 2. 
I note the common sense that obviously came out of the Law and Order Committee’s consideration in respect of the redrafting of those powers of the police. There is a large amount of redlining in many parts of Subpart 6. I compliment the members of the select committee particularly the National members who obviously managed to bring some sense to the issue of the actual authorities that would enforce this legislation because the previous Government was responsible for first bringing the bill to the House. But during the select committee deliberation members were able to highlight the fact that the New Zealand Police is the proper authority to deal with this matter and Subpart 6 spells out quite specifically what can be done. The police can move rapidly to obtain orders and to go to the High Court because time is of the essence in those sorts of things. The select committee members particularly the National members—hard-working loyal members—should be congratulated on driving the change necessary for the Police to be the appropriate authority to deal with this. I congratulate those hard-working loyal members on bringing sense to the deliberation of the select committee. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in his name to new clause 154 be agreed to: 
to omit “section 149A(3)(a) (b) or (c)” and substitute “section 149A(2)(a) (b) or (c)”.
Chadwick Steve: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2229] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Paul Quinn 
: Mr Chairman— 
Hon Annette King 
: This is absolute repetition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I think the speakers so far have been doing all right. I call the honourable Paul Quinn and I hope that he speaks directly to Part 2 with a luminous address.
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2268] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I know the time is short but it is a very warm pleasure to hear Ms Pillay offer her commendation to us and I respectfully and humbly accept that commendation. 
Debate interrupted.
Bridges Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2267] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I do not feel too bad about taking the call off Lynne Pillay as I am sure we will be saying very similar things and both making good points about this bill. It is a very small bill of about two or three pages so I am sure that the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power wants me to speak equally briefly and efficiently. The bill contains a powerful idea and that is access to justice and the gap between— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s what I was going to say. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: As I say great minds think alike. The problem is the gap between where we as citizens are able to go to the disputes tribunal—currently for claims of up to $7500 without consent—and where it is feasible and economic to go to the District Court. As we all know this bill expands the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. Of course as a lawyer and having talked to many lawyers over the years I can say that something that people and lawyers have been particularly concerned about in the past has been quality issues in the disputes tribunal. Lawyers used to say flippantly that one could flip a coin to see how a case would go but that is no longer the case. Peter Spiller the Principal Disputes Referee has done an excellent job tidying up the disputes tribunal’s act and there is considerably more certainty there now. 
I do not think that we should overestimate the extent to which even in court cases there is a large amount of uncertainty in the process even in the best of cases. I remember a Queen’s Counsel once saying to me that even if the case is 100 percent watertight on paper one still only has a 70 to 75 percent chance of winning the case. Even in court cases certainty can be overrated and it is good that we have now a District Court where quality issues are being addressed; it does a good job. 
The threshold as I say has been lifted. Frankly we have a situation in New Zealand at the current time where any lawyer worth his or her salt who is advising a client would be very clear to the client that for a dispute of any amount less than $30000—some would say more than that—going to court is decidedly uneconomic. The uncharitable might say that part of that is because lawyers complicate matters through discovery through pleadings and so on but as I say there is a gap between where the disputes tribunal finishes and where it is feasible and economically viable to go to court. So for that reason alone it is very good indeed that we are raising that barrier. I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for your wise choice in letting me take the call.
Graham Kennedy: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2265] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the referral of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill to the select committee. We find the rationale for the bill to be entirely fair and reasonable given the fact that the levels for claims were set over 10 years ago. We do have some interest in noting the three different options that are set out in the explanatory note of the bill. It will be our intent to pursue those further and other concerns as well in the select committee. But it is sufficient for the moment just to affirm that the Green Party supports the bill’s referral to the select committee and we will look forward to pursuing it there. Thank you.
Barker Rick: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2251] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member the issue of central heating in the Chamber has been raised with me. People feel a bit warm. I have asked my trusty assistant to check on the matter. I am advised that the air conditioning has now been cranked up a notch and things should cool down a bit in the Chamber. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing who knows?
Douglas Roger: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Douglas Roger: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2247] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT supports the general thrust of this bill and supports its referral to a select committee. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett for her ready response to my request for additional information relating to this bill. I raised with her what I believe could be seen as—potentially at least—one or two unfair aspects of this bill and I take the opportunity to raise them in the House. 
I take the example of a New Zealander who has worked here for 45 years between the ages of 20 years and 65 years. If that person retires and goes to Thailand to live under this bill that person will get a 100 percent superannuation payment and that seems a reasonable provision. If we take the example of someone from a Pacific Island country who works in New Zealand for 20 years—240 months—or more then returns home that person will also get 100 percent of his or her superannuation rights. On the other hand if we take the example of a New Zealander who was born in New Zealand who worked in New Zealand from say the age of 20 to 65—for 45 years—and who moves to Australia that person could get zero superannuation payment as a result of the reciprocal social security agreement we have with Australia. 
In other words a New Zealander who has worked for 45 years and then lives in Thailand will get a full superannuation right another person who has come from one of the islands and worked here for 20 years or more then returned home will also get 100 percent but a New Zealander who has lived in New Zealand for 65 years and worked here for 45 years who has a few assets or has a bit of other income and who goes to Australia will get absolutely zero because of the social security agreement we have with Australia. Such people will get zero from New Zealand but also they will get zero from Australia. In other words they will get no pension whatsoever. 
I think a lot of New Zealanders will see that as an anomaly that we need to address. Why should it be that if one goes to Thailand or a Pacific Island one gets 100 percent of one’s pension yet if one goes to Australia—or potentially to other countries with which we have social security agreements—under the arrangements we have made with Australia one receives no superannuation at all? 
I have raised that issue with the Minister and I thank her for the information she has given me. She has been very open. But I think the issue should be addressed and thought about at the select committee.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2237] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 8. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2236] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to.
Katene Rahui: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Katene Rahui: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2233] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am happy to take a call on this matter. The first thing I will make a point of is that the title of this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is an absolute misnomer. It is totally deceptive. This bill does not deal with just recovering the proceeds of crime; it also deals with the forfeiture of tainted land—that is land that may have been used to grow crops that could be used to produce drugs for example. I reiterate that the land might have been used for those purposes because the bill deals with issues where there is suspected crime not just where crime has been proved. The bill relates to land where there is a suspicion that crime has been occurring. 
With regard to the matter that was dealt with by Mr Borrows—that procedures are in place for owners of Maori land to able to speak to this matter—I have a concern about that. In order for those people to be able to make an application to the court so that the land they have an interest in is not forfeited in this way they have to be aware that the matter is coming before the court. When the Crown makes its application to the court will it send out notices to all owners of Maori land so that they can come along and make this application? There is a real problem here because as owners of Maori land we do not know what is going on on our land because we are not living there. I have made this point before. We are not always aware of what is happening on our land. We are not always aware that the police have arrested one of our whanaunga members and that that person will be coming to court and that he or she is also an owner of land in this block. 
There are real problems with this bill and they have not been dealt with. Those are the reasons why the Maori Party is opposed to this bill. Those problems have not been adequately dealt with. Although it is good news that this issue will be dealt with at the High Court level rather than the District Court level there is already a precedent at the District Court level where Maori land has been taken by the Crown. It has been ordered to be forfeited by the court and given to the Crown and it will continue to happen. This is of concern for us. Kia ora.
Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2231] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call in respect of clauses 1 and 2. Members would have noticed no doubt as they read through the detail of clause 2 that the legislation will come into force on a date that is 8 months after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I am advised that a substantial transition period such as this is designed to allow regulations to be developed to deal with one or two particular matters. One is the necessary forms and the usual kind of stuff that goes with these types of transitional provisions and periods. The second is the official assignee’s gearing up for the necessary orders of profit forfeiture and the like to be fully developed and put in place by the necessary institutions. Although 8 months is not an ideal period of time it is the length of time that the select committee—I was not there for this particular issue—was no doubt advised these things take. 
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the Committee of the whole House for their support of this legislation. It is something that we think as no doubt the previous Government thought will make a difference.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2231] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2230] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2230] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2226] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take another call or two.
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2225] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is good to be able to stand again to speak to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill given that a little earlier so many people wanted to speak in support of it I had to stand down. I want to talk in particular this time about quite a significant change made by the Law and Order Committee to a provision that was in the original bill when it was introduced to the House which so far in my intensive listening I have heard no one mention—and in particular no one from the Opposition. It is the move now to make the authority in respect of pursuing these cases the Commissioner of Police. 
When the original bill was first tabled there was a proposal that the Serious Fraud Office take responsibility for the oversight and management of this legislation. That is of course addressed in Part 2. I must say it is pleasing to see that the select committee came to its senses and overrode the intentions of the previous Government to have the Serious Fraud Office oversee the enforcement of the measures in this bill particularly given that the previous Government was working to disband the Serious Fraud Office either by way of ensuring a lack of resourcing for it or as we subsequently found out by doing a deal with its then coalition partner. The Labour Government was not only in fact preparing to disband it but also failing to even provide it with sufficient resources. There was some suggestion that it would get $3 million. 
The fact of the matter is that the people who are being pursued here are hardened criminals. They will stop at nothing to protect their property—in particular they will do so in very violent ways. So it really is sensible that at the select committee the enforcing authority in respect of this legislation was shifted from being the Serious Fraud Office to being the Commissioner of Police. One can imagine the situation as was talked about last night on TV of arriving at a house full of money. One can imagine the machine-guns shotguns or any other source of armoury that the gangs would use to protect their ill-gotten gains. So it is only sensible that our law enforcement division being the New Zealand Police—and in this case probably the armed offenders squad—be given responsibility for entering into these very dangerous situations. 
I want to commend the select committee for recognising the deficiency in the original bill removing the Serious Fraud Office as the empowering body and turning that role over to the Police—in particular to the Commissioner of Police. That now means that in enforcing any power that is used in respect of the provisions of this legislation we can provide appropriate levels of resourcing to address any situation particularly when it is dangerous and we can take great comfort from the fact that the commissioner will be the one who oversees that enforcement.
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2221] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Indeed it is a pleasure to be able to stand today with my colleagues from both sides of the Chamber to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill particularly when the Committee is speaking as one rare though that is on an issue of such importance as gang violence. We are addressing Part 2 which is the cornerstone of this bill because it gives effect to the intentions that this Parliament wants to drive in recovering the proceeds of crime. 
In particular I highlight clause 18 “Applying for restraining order” which provides the power to a commissioner to apply for a restraining order to seize property whether it has been directly acquired by an accomplice or by associates. Clauses 19 and 20 detail how that process will work. Clauses 24 and 25 talk a bit more about the way that those specific restraining orders are to be applied and defines tainted property in terms of the property that is to be confiscated. 
The reason that all of those specific requirements are needed is simply that there is no doubt we are dealing with organised crime in this process. Of course although we are aware that we do not operate in the true style of the Mafia where organised crime had its own tradition none the less it is present in many of our gangs. During my research in support of this bill I was able to obtain information on a number of cases where in recent times the law enforcement agencies have been unable to if you like take from criminal gangs and their associates the proceeds that have been acquired during the course of carrying out crimes. The importance of that of course is that the fact that they might do time in jail is really of little consequence to them. It is more of a badge of honour. What really does hurt them is when their nest egg is taken away. That of course is the intention of this bill. It provides the power for the authorities to do so which we should fully support. 
The next point I want to highlight which is equally as important as that is that in exercising such powers it is incumbent on the authorities to do so responsibly. Those accountabilities if you will are set out in clause 28 and I think it gives a very thorough description of the process so that we do not have unbridled power in the exercise of those authorities. The recent gang killings at airports in Australia are an example of what is being driven by the drug trade. There is no question that throughout organised crime and particularly in the gangs high levels of money and assets are involved. I heard it described on Television One last night as a house that is full of money. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2214] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call and finish what I was beginning to say when we started talking about Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill a bill that stands for the great principle that crime should not pay. Part 2 achieves that purpose. Part 2 is the lion’s share of the bill with over 220 clauses. It provides for restraining orders civil forfeiture orders and much more than that. 
I note something in relation to the civil forfeiture orders and it is really a large theme in this legislation before the Committee. I note that this provision takes us to a civil regime which is a very significant and important change with this bill. Most of the time in criminal law the standard of proof is one of being beyond reasonable doubt. This standard means that juries have to be sure. If they have any sort of reasonable doubt as to someone’s guilt then that is the end of the matter. That may be OK—in fact it is more than OK; it is absolutely right—when we are dealing with the liberty of a citizen but it is not necessarily right when we are dealing with sums of many millions of dollars that are probably ill-gotten gains. Parliament has made a good value judgment in this bill in moving from the criminal standard of guilt being beyond reasonable doubt to the civil standard of guilt being more likely than not or more probable than not. In my view that is the right thing to do. 
This is a significant change in the law. It makes all the difference because there is now no need for the offender necessarily to have been caught; it is about the offence. The corollary of this is that we can get to people and to money in situations where the person involved did not necessarily get his or her hands dirty. We can get the assets even though there may be a series of Chinese walls between the person and the money. It is quite a common situation in the criminal arena that people higher up the chain have their mules do the work. They have others— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Or their camels. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —their camels if we are going back to earlier in the day—do the work. 
So there are two significant shifts here. There is a change in the standard of proof down from the criminal standard to the civil standard but there is also a change so that no longer do we need to have a person be caught in the act. We can get to the property even where as is so often the case in gang-related activity the people at the top have managed successfully to get away from the criminal behaviour—where they have managed to extract themselves and to have others who are lower down the chain do the work. That is often done through very nasty means or through coercion and it may surprise some in this Chamber including the Greens to learn that those means can include torture. That happens in this country. I have been involved in cases where people have been forced by torture into doing illegal acts. This bill cuts through all that as we have gone to a civil standard of proof.
Guy Nathan: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Guy Nathan: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2213] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the second reading of the very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the then members of the Government Administration Committee that was chaired by Shane Ardern: Darien Fenton Brian Connell the Hon Harry Duynhoven Sandra Goudie and the Hon Dover Samuels. The select committee heard four written submissions and one verbal submission. 
This is very very important legislation and I will give the House some of the reasons why I believe it is extremely important. I acknowledge that this bill still allows for people out there to blow the whistle and that is extremely important. They will continue to receive the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 on the grounds that they believe it is reasonable for information of serious wrongdoing to be provided. That is a very important part of this bill. It widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is considered an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. This extends access to the Act and to its protections. 
Two further amendments were made to the bill through the work of that very important select committee. I will spend a little time if I can on those two recommendations which have already been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers this afternoon. The first is the insertion of subsection (2) in section 6C inserted by clause 6 which specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The second amends section 15E(3) inserted by clause 8 to include a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act which makes it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsmen with the information specified in that provision. This is a very important bill which this Government is progressing. For that reason the Government supports the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Chadwick Steve: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2205] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is one further Labour member before we go to ACT and the Green Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Darien Fenton. Has she given the floor to the Green member? 
Darien Fenton 
: Yes.
Turei Metiria: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2205] 
METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you know there is a guide for the order of speakers and I understand that we are now at the usual position for a Green Party member to take the call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: According to the list that I have it was expected to be a further Labour member.
English Bill: Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2204] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2203] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he “agree” with the Minister in charge of ACC that he would attend the examination of the ACC financial review by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as a witness? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed with the Minister that he would attend the meeting on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was that agreement not shown in the witness list on the committee agenda that was issued the day before that meeting? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It was agreed that the Minister would attend and possibly it may be the case that that should have been shown on there; my apologies if it was not.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2200] 
11.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What updates if any can he give on the status of Whenuapai Air Base? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday Cabinet agreed that Whenuapai would be retained as a permanent air base for the air force. This decision removes any uncertainty about the future of the Royal New Zealand Air Force at Whenuapai and for the local community who have been very concerned about that facility. Cabinet also agreed to a programme of essential remedial work to reverse the previous Government’s last decade of neglect. 
John Hayes 
: What work needs to be done to fix up the base? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The most urgent need is to rebuild the infrastructure of the runway and the hard-standing areas. These have been neglected for a full decade and now have deteriorated. Other work will be required for fuel storage facilities as well. 
John Hayes 
: Why has the base been run down so badly? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The previous Government had planned to vacate Whenuapai. However it did nothing at all to vacate the base and kept extending the date from which it would vacate. That led to uncertainty and confusion about the future of the base. It also failed to undertake essential maintenance and has left a legacy not just here but also elsewhere in the Defence Force of run-down defence assets.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2199] 
9.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What action is he taking to fix ACC’s financial problems? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 This afternoon I announced the reconfigured Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board. I have put strong emphasis on actuarial investment and financial governance skills to better equip the corporation with the skills to address the scheme’s financial problems in these challenging economic times. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why has the Minister determined that change in the ACC board was necessary? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: First the Government’s new direction for the accident compensation scheme requires a focus on cost control in order to avoid unaffordable levy increases. Second the changed economic environment requires top-flight investment and actuarial skills to oversee the scheme’s very large liability and investment portfolio. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree that replacing more than half of the ACC board including Ross Wilson and Wayne Butson will make it easier for the Government to reduce the scope of accident compensation cover and to privatise the earners account which currently covers all workplace accidents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it will enable us to ensure that the board members will have the top-flight governance skills that are needed to run a very large organisation and to provide New Zealanders with 24/7 care but at the same time ensure that the levies are affordable for ordinary New Zealanders. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister received on briefings and timeliness of responses? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was amused to note that the deputy leader of the Labour Party said there were some 600 briefings. In fact there was one. I note that an important briefing was provided on 14 August last year noting a requirement for $1.56 billion. The matter was not included in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update because Treasury officials said it was not being considered by Ministers. The billion-dollar question is why a problem of that size was not being considered by Ministers.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2195] 
5.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will New Zealand be following Australia’s lead in reconsidering its position and giving New Zealand’s unqualified support for the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples thereby reversing the New Zealand Labour Government’s vote against it in 2007; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: Australia has recently reviewed its stance on the declaration. An announcement on its new approach is expected on Friday. We will look at the way the Australian Government interprets the declaration and will see whether its interpretation is applicable in New Zealand. However I cannot comment until we have seen what the Australians are saying about their support. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What recent advice has the Minister received from officials regarding New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In November 2008 the ministry’s briefing to the incoming Minister outlined New Zealand’s position on the declaration. Since then the Minister has received several pieces of advice giving him background on the declaration and the position taken by New Zealand. 
Hone Harawira 
: Has the Minister been involved in any discussions with his Australian counterparts regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; if so what has been the nature of those discussions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes the Minister of Foreign Affairs had an informal conversation with his Australian counterpart on Sunday 29 March in which the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was covered. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Why is Aotearoa New Zealand one of only three countries that oppose recognising indigenous rights under this UN declaration? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is important to understand with regard to the declaration that it is aspirational and is not legally binding. New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously and does not support texts unless we are able to implement them. So the issue is whether it is possible to do that.
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2204] 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Boscawen John: Urgent Debates — Transport Funding—Replacement of Regional Fuel Tax with Increased Fuel Excise Duty and Road-user Charges 
Boscawen John: Urgent Debates — Transport Funding—Replacement of Regional Fuel Tax with Increased Fuel Excise Duty and Road-user Charges 
[Volume:653;Page:1989] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Annette King talked about getting facts right and I think that is very important— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: What is the point of order? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Annette King said I was from Hawke’s Bay. I would like to correct that impression. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. Please sit. The next speech is scheduled to be 5 minutes long with a bell at 4 minutes.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO 
[Volume:653;Page:1961] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 March 2009 of Mrs Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO who represented the electorate of Avon from 1972 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO 
Obituaries — Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO 
[Volume:653;Page:1961] 
Tuesday 24 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 March 2009 of Mrs Mary Dorothy Batchelor QSO who represented the electorate of Avon from 1972 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2045] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to oppose this Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill along with all of my Labour Party colleagues. Just as Mr Hipkins said earlier I have heard absolutely nothing from the National Government to give us any reason to think that there is a rational explanation as to why we might support this bill at all. The No. 1 concern obviously from members on this side of the House is that National’s desire to privatise prisons is basically déjà vu. Here we go again: privatisation privatisation privatisation. 
Moana Mackey 
: The answer to everything. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The answer to everything. Let us privatise the corrections system and let us privatise our prisons. Let us privatise our police force next! Let us privatise accident compensation let us privatise education and let us privatise health. It is just privatisation privatisation. The agenda is very clear now and New Zealand knows it for sure. Labour said before the election that National would be out to privatise everything and here we go. We have had 4 months of a National Government and the agenda has been made very clear. 
The Labour Party is fundamentally opposed to this move with the No. 1 reason being that we believe that the prison system is a core public service. Given that it is a core public service it would be completely inappropriate to turn it over to the private sector to make a profit from it. I ask why we would want the private sector to make a profit out of people who are offending. Those people are putting public safety and everything else at risk. Why would we want people to make a profit out of that? 
Metiria Turei from the Green Party made a good point earlier with regard to what happened with the Auckland Central Remand Prison when it was managed by the GEO Group which was previously known as the Wackenhut Corporation. She raised the point that basically the prison was a loss-leader and that yes things went OK but the reason that things went OK under that leadership was that the corporation had big plans— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2024] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Insolvency Amendment Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 May 2009 and have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Eric: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2024] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection; leave has been granted.
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2024] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the report date by extending it from 12 May 2009 to 28 May 2009 in light of the fact that the first reading of the Insolvency Amendment Bill was not completed prior to the adjournment thereby allowing 2 months in total for consideration at the Commerce Committee.